Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Sir Edmund Brocklebank be added to the Committee of Selection."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Building Labour

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the release of sufficient building labour to deal with the serious position which has arisen in the maintenance, repair and completion of partially-built houses and to enable further houses to be built in areas where there is grave overcrowding?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health with regard to the two uncompleted houses to which my hon. Friend referred in a previous Question and am informed that having regard to the substantial amounts of controlled materials that would be required the Ministry of Health would not be prepared to support an application for a licence to enable the houses to be completed. Consequently the question of supplying labour has not arisen in these cases. , With regard to the position generally, I cannot add to the statements already made by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Colegate: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer to my Question two or three weeks ago, may I ask with regard to this Question whether he does not recognise that there is a grave state of affairs arising in certain areas

owing to the impossibility of doing anything even in the gravest cases of emergency housing?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think that arises out of this Question. I have been asked to answer in regard to two particular houses.

Mr. Colegate: There is nothing in my Question about two particular houses. That was the Question a fortnight ago. This is a purely general Question on emergency housing, and I must press for a reply.

Mr. Bevin: The question of supplying labour for houses is dealt with after sanction has been given for the houses to be built, and I do not know that I have refused to supply labour where sanction has been given.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible day.

Unemployment, Merthyr Tydfil

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Production what immediate steps he proposes to take to provide, in conjunction with other Government Departments, employment for the large numbers of unemployed immobile workers and juveniles in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): As I informed the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 2nd June, it is the policy of the Government as far as is practicable to place such new production projects as are required in districts where labour is available. In carrying out this policy, the labour available at Merthyr Tydfil and other parts of Wales will not be overlooked.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil suitable buildings available for installations if the Ministry so desired to utilise the labour of these people who are unemployed?

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir, but I think my hon. Friend knows there are other factors besides buildings, and every one of them is considered whenever a new project is available for allocation.

Doctors' Panel, Burnley

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that three local
doctors have formed a panel, meeting once a week at the Burnley exmployment exchange, before which workers seeking release from employment for health reasons are compelled to appear; that the National Service officer refuses to accept certificates from the workers' panel doctors; that a perfunctory examination is given for which 2s. 6d. is charged; and whether this practice has his approval?

Mr. Bevin: This arrangement has been made on their initiative by the medical practitioners at Burnley for the convenience of all concerned and does not require my approval except that the use of the employment exchange building has been allowed owing to the absence of other suitable premises. My Department does not compel workers to attend-before this panel, nor does it refuse to consider medical certificates from other doctors.

Mr. Burke: Do I take it that anyone who refuses to attend this panel will not be refused a release if his medical grounds are satisfactory?

Mr. Bevin: That is so.

Discharged Workers (Reinstatement)

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the effects of the judgment of a divisional court in Hodge versus Ultra Electric, Limited?

Mr. Bevin: I am informed that this judgment has been interpreted in some quarters as meaning that an employer who has been directed under the Essential Work Order to reinstate a worker is not legally bound to do more than to restore the worker to his pay-roll at the same rate of wages as hitherto, without putting him back on the same work or even giving him any work at all. I am advised that this is a misinterpretation of the judgment and that the employer in such circumstances is bound, if possible, to restore the worker to the position held before his dismissal where he will do the same work on the same terms and conditions. It is only where the employer can show, that this is not possible that mere restoration of wages is a sufficient compliance with the direction. In such a case, moreover, there would be prima

facie ground for supposing that there was a redundancy of workers in the establishment, and the course I would normally adopt would be to arrange for a suitable reduction so that work as well as wages might be found for the worker whose reinstatement had been directed.

Sir Granville Gibson: In a case such as the one referred to is the employer called upon to pay wages during the period from the dismissal to the reinstatement?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, that is the order.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend taking steps to implement his opinion as to the real significance of this important judgment?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolutions adopted by many local authorities at the instance of the British Limbless Ex-service Men's Association, of which copies have been sent to him, urging early legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons; and whether he is receiving reports from the local authorities and private firms who have undertaken surveys of all work done in their establishments, with a view to the employment of a fair proportion of disabled persons in appropriate jobs?

Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and the preparation of legislation is under consideration. In regard to the second part, I have not yet received reports of any surveys of the kind referred to, but I shall be glad to consider any results that are brought to my notice.

Coalmines (Surface Workers)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young men employed on the surface at the Dawdon and Horden pits, in county Durham, are being forced to accept employment underground and that they have expressed a wish to join His Majesty's Forces in preference; and whether he can accede to their request?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) on 18th March and the reply which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power gave to the hon. Member for Hemsworth {Mr. G. Griffiths) on 12th May. The particular cases which my hon. Friend has sent to me are being investigated.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this matter is creating considerable resentment in the area affected? Is it not possible to expedite a decision so that these men may not be forced underground but may have the opportunity of joining the Services and perhaps making room for other men who are capable of doing this work to be returned from the Forces?

Mr. Bevin: As I have explained before, this matter is really in the hands of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and I act as agent in carrying out the order.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right, hon. Friend understand that I have considerable difficulty with the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and is it not possible for him as Minister of Labour and member of the War Cabinet to bring pressure on the Minister of Fuel and Power to do the right thing?

Mr. Bevin: No one appreciates Ministerial difficulties more than I do.

Light Work

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are now registering at the Burnley employment exchange for light work; how many of these have been registering for over two months; and how many are Service men discharged during the present war as physically unfit?

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister bear in mind that many of these men now applying for light work have been discharged from the Army and have no pension? If light work is restricted to women, what outlet is there for ex-Service men?

Mr. Bevin: I am looking into the question.

Professional Men (Substitutes)

Major Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Labour whether if priority substitutes, sent to help professional men, are always selected because they possess knowledge of the type of work they are asked to undertake; and whether, in case experience proves this not to be so, he will consider representations on the subject?

Mr. Bevin: Persons submitted by my local offices to fill vacancies for substitutes are selected, as far as practicable, because of their suitability to perform the work which they will be required to do. In particular, women in the older age groups under the Registration for Employment Order who have had experience in professional offices are specially earmarked for submission to substitute vacancies in comparable work.

Land Workers

Sir A. Baillie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will investigate the circumstances under which an official of his Department announced that adequate labour was now available on the land, especially in view of its serious effect on the recruiting of amateur workers?

Mr. Bevin: The statement made by the official of the Ministry was that there was no suitable agricultural vacancy in the Home Counties for the particular conscientious objector whose case was under consideration and I regret very much that this should have been turned into a statement that there are no agricultural vacancies in those counties, which is of course not the case. I am having the position as regards conscientious objectors in this area investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (HARDSHIP COMMITTEES)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the documents circulated by the Glasgow Trades Council to workers' representatives on the panels of hardship committees; and what decision he has arrived at with regard to instructions or guidance being issued to these statutory and independent committees by unauthorised bodies?

Mr. Bevin: It would be improper for me or anyone else to attempt to give instructions to Military Service (Hardship)


Committees. I do not know that the document to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was intended to give such instructions or guidance, but, if that were its object, I should regard it as most objectionable.

Commander Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great importance that all those concerned place on the complete impartiality of these tribunals, and could he take steps to ensure that they are not interfered with by outside bodies?

Mr. Bevin: I think that I have given that assurance in the very direct answer to the original Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Land Purchases

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that before and during the war there has been much selling of land in plots in the New Forest and elsewhere to buyers without any disclosure of planning proposals which would affect the land; and whether he will make it known to the Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute and the Law Society that, before purchases of land are contemplated for building or otherwise, the local authority or planning officer should be consulted?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that land is sometimes bought without inquiry regarding planning and other restrictions to which it may be subject, but the Register of Local Land Charges contains entries of such restrictions, and I have ho doubt that auctioneers and the bodies to whom my hon. Friend refers are well aware of the need for search in the Register and any other appropriate inquiries. This answer should serve to give further publicity to the matter.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of what he says this business is going on, and will he himself give an intimation to these bodies that they should be cautionary in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: Machinery exists for the registration of these restrictions, and it really is a case for proper professional vigilance on the part of agents for purchasers.

Major Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an active and useful planning committee in the New Forest, and will he consider giving that and other committees throughout the country greater powers?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that.

Reconstruction Plans

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has considered a resolution from the Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull, complaining of the lack of definite legislation to help areas like Hull to proceed with plans for reconstruction; what replies he has sent and what he proposes to do?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have received the resolution referred to and am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Pensions the position for pension of an ex-soldier's widow, whose husband died after prolonged medical treatment in 1942 when in receipt of full treatment allowances of £2 10s., less 9s. for hospital maintenance; whether the full treatment allowance is regarded as equal to a full pension; and whether in such a case a widow's pension of 26s. 8d. would be payable instead of £2 1s. paid to her while her husband was in hospital?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): If the conditions of the Royal Warrant are fulfilled, the widow receives a pension of the amount stated whether her husband is in receipt of pension or of treatment allowances, at the time of his death.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in his reconsideration of the basis of the pension, he will consider adopting the principle of "Fit for service, fit for pension"?

Sir W. Womersley: The only reasonable basis for the grant of war pensions is that of compensation for impairment of health resulting in some degree from the effects of service. I could not recommend that the State Should be made liable for the whole range of ailments which affect the population as a whole merely because they occurred during a period of service


without being in any way influenced by its conditions. Nor do I believe that ex-Service men would wish the standard of war pensions to be relaxed to this extent.

Mr. Bowles: If the Army, Navy or Air Force are prepared to take a man in to do active service and in the course of that service he is invalided out, does not my right hon. Friend agree that he should be fit to receive a pension?

Sir W. Womersley: This is not a subject that can be dealt with by question and answer. I suggest that my hon. Friend introduces it in the Debate that will take place, I hope, shortly after we resume after Whitsun.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that all over the country there is deep resentment about the unfortunate position of many ex-Service men who are now on the dole? Surely that is a most invidious position for these men, for the nation and for the Government to be placed in. Will he consider in particular those doubtful cases where men are invalided from the Forces and are without any compensation whatever?

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has yet been reached in the consultations with the Minister of Health regarding provision for the widows and children of men who lose their lives from non-contributable causes whilst serving in the forces, and in whose cases there are no entitlements under the Royal Warrant or the Contributory Pensions Act?

Sir W. Womersley: This is one of the matters to which I shall refer in my general statement to the House at an early date.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not the matter referred to in the Question one primarily for the Minister of Health, and need it wait until my right hon. Friend makes his statement before we get a reply?

Sir. W. Womersley: No, Sir, it is, not a matter primarily for the Minister of Health. I think I am finding a way out of the difficulty which will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in disallowing claims for compensation for injuries sustained by Civil Defence volunteers, including members of the Police War Reserve, whilst

on their way to duty, he considers himself bound by the ruling of the courts under the Workmen's Compensation Acts that accidents occurring at such times do not arise out of and in the course of employment and are, therefore, not subjects for compensation?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. In view of the close similarity of the language used in Section 1 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and the definition of "war service injury" in Section 8 (1) 'of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, I think it right to accept the guidance of decisions of the courts given on the former Section. I do not, therefore, regard an injury sustained by a Civil Defence volunteer while on the way to his duty as arising "in the course of" such duty unless the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the general rule. Members of the Police War Reserve are, of course, treated in the same way on this point as all other Civil Defence volunteers.

Mr. Cocks: Is there not a great distinction between a Civil Defence worker and a man working for a private employer in industry, in that the former is working for the State in war-time and might have to deal with a civil emergency at any moment while on the way to work, and therefore his service is continuous?

Sir W. Womersley: If the incident arises when action has been called for in case of emergency, the case is certainly entitled to consideration from me, but if it occurs in the ordinary way while the man is proceeding to his employment I cannot agree that the Act does allow me to give a pension.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will take steps to increase the allowances paid for children of members of the Forces, in the event of their fathers' death on active service, to the same amount as is payable before their fathers' death?

Sir W. Womersley: This subject forms part of the more general question relating to rates of pensions which was raised in the recent Debate and which I have under consideration. The hon. and learned Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Pensions why a smaller pre-


natal allowance is paid to a widow of a member of the Forces when the death of her husband occurs more than three months before the anticipated date of birth, than that paid to the wife of a member of the Forces?

Sir W. Womersley: The pre-natal allowance is an anticipation by about three months of the allowance which will become payable on the birth of the child and, as the rates paid for children are not uniform, it must necessarily vary in amount.

Captain Cobb: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will undertake to publish in a White Paper the conclusions he has reached as a result of his consideration of pensions questions which have been submitted to him, in time for the matter to be debated by this House before the Summer Recess?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Prime Minister, on 3rd June, that this suggestion would be considered.

Captain Cobb: Could my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question before the Summer Recess, as in the minds of most Members this is a matter of the greatest possible urgency and importance?

Sir W. Womersley: A pledge has already been given that there shall be a general Debate on all pensions questions.

Commander Galbraith: asked the Minister of Pensions why in the event of the death by accident of a member of the Forces while on 48 hours' leave no pension is payable to his widow although a pension is payable to her if the death occurs while her husband is on seven days' leave; whether he has reconsidered this matter and with what result?

Sir W. Womersley: I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the liability accepted for injuries due to accidents occurring on the direct journey to or from a member's home. I shall deal with this matter in the general statement on war pensions which I have undertaken to make to the House.

Commander Galbraith: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is necessary to give earlier consideration to this matter? Does he not appreciate the complete injustice of the position, and should not the Government consider it forthwith?

Sir W. Womersley: That point has been put to me by many other hon. Members in reference to questions in which they are interested, and I think in fairness to the House I must deal with them all in a comprehensive statement.

Mr. De la B¸re: Why allow this meanness to go on? There is too much petty meanness.

Major Lloyd: If an injustice is a gross injustice why should it be allowed to continue a day longer?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions Whether he has given further consideration to the publication of a White Paper or an announcement on forthcoming pensions reforms prior to debate in this House; and whether in any such statement he will show the Dominion pension rates and the conditions under which wives' and children's allowances are paid?

Sir W. Womersley: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 3rd June. With regard to the second part, some of the figures asked for are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Oldfield).

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that the figures he will circulate in reply to the further Question will only tell half the story, because they will tell only what happens to a single man? Will he include in what he circulates the provisions made for men who marry after their disability?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Ought we not to do as well as our Dominions?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will review the pensions of officers disabled in the last war, with a view to granting some increase at least to those who, owing to their disabilities, are unable to follow any employment?

Sir W. Womersley: I see no ground for increasing the disability retired pay of officers disabled in the last war as the rates were based on a cost of living figure in excess of that obtaining to-day.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that many of these men are suffering great financial hardship, will the Minister not agree at least to consider their cases in the general review of the pensions position?

Sir W. Womersley: Any general statement about these men suffering financial hardship does not appear to me to be very strong, inasmuch as the minimum pension is £210 a year.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it help this matter if we gave the Minister of Pensions a pension?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether pensions will be paid to the dependants of the three naval ratings and two members of the Women's Royal Naval Service who were killed when a motor-truck overturned near Warrington on 1st June?

Sir W. Womersley: There has not yet been time to obtain the necessary particulars to enable these cases to be settled, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say now whether, in the circumstances in which this accident took place, he agrees that they were on duty?

Sir W. Womersley: How can I give an opinion until I get the report? It only occurred a few days ago.

23. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions how many persons, including children, have received payments under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme; whether he is satisfied that the present scales are equitable; and whether he proposes to institute a general inquiry into the operation of the scheme?

Sir W. Womersley: 131,692 persons, including children, have received payments under the scheme. This figure does not include additional allowances granted in respect of wives and children. The scales of pension under the scheme are generally the same as the basic rates for members of the Fighting Forces and are

thus included in the general survey of pensions matters-which I have in hand.

Mr. Sorensen: I am not sure whether I heard the answer rightly. Do I understand that the Minister will review this aspect of the pensions problem along with other aspects?

Sir W. Womersley: This is one of the difficulties which has caused me some delay. In addition to dealing with Service pensions, my Ministry now has to deal with pensions for the civilian population, for the Merchant Navy and for the Civil Defence Forces, and therefore, whatever is done for the Services must certainly include the civilian population and others as well.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a statement with regard to this aspect of the problem when he speaks after the Recess?

Sir W. Womersley: I shall make a general statement on the whole of the pensions problem.

Mr. Rhys Davites: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he proposes to empower the tribunals he is about to set up to deal with claims for war pensions to determine in favour of the appellant though that determination may violate the provisions of the Royal Warrant and to suggest that the Royal Warrant should be amended to cover cases which are now outside its scope?

Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend will see from the Bill which I introduced yesterday that the Government have decided that Appeal Tribunals must have regard to the terms of the Royal Warrant. Any relevant amendments which may be made in the Warrant will, of course, bear on decisions of the Tribunal as well as of the Ministry.

Mr. Davies: The point I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer is this: If these tribunals find that they cannot deal fairly by these appellants within the provisions of the Royal Warrant, will it be competent for them to suggest to his Department that there should be an Amendment of the Royal Warrant?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir, and I should certainly take a good deal of


notice of any such recommendations by tribunals, which come into close contact with cases.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 90 per cent. of the cases which cause annoyance to Members arise not from the degree of accident or injury or aggravation, but from the fact that the applicants' cases do not square with the Royal Warrant? Is he not aware that that is the cause of all the trouble?

Sir W. Womersley: I believe that is the cause of much trouble in connection with laws and regulations generally.

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Pensions the maximum weekly compensation payable to an unmarried man of private soldier status, who becomes totally disabled in the present war, by the Pensions Ministries of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa?

Sir W. Womersley: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Oldfield: Does that mean a complete account of all the matters pertaining to pensions in New Zealand?

Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid that would fill a couple of OFFICIAL REPORTS, but I will give the hon. Member all the relevant information.

Following is the reply:

Maximum weekly compensation payable to an unmarried man of private soldier status who becomes totally disabled in the present war:





s.
d.


Great Britain
…
…
37
6


Australia
…
…
50
0*


Canada
…
…
$17·30


New Zealand
…
…
40
0


South Africa
…
…
77
0


* Increased from 42s. to 50s. with effect from 6th May, 1943.

A true comparison of these rates cart only be made if regard is had to the cost of living in the Dominions.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will publish a statement showing what recommendations have been made to him by his Central

Advisory Committee during the past year affecting amendments to the pensions Warrant?

Sir W. Womersley: While I invariably give the fullest consideration to recommendations made by my Central Advisory Committee, the responsibility for final decisions necessarily rests with me, and it would be inconsistent with the purpose and usefulness of the Committee if I undertook to publish any part of its proceedings.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not a fact that hon. Members from all parts of the House are included in that Committee, and does my right hon Friend suggest in his answer that the recommendations should be confidential to him only and that the House should not have some information on the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: That is in accordance with the Statutory Rules and Regulations laid down.

Mr. Bellenger: Will not my right hon. Friend take some action to have some of the Rules amended?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATURALISATION)

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the large number of applications by aliens for naturalisation do not amount in any way to a menace to public security; and what attitude he is adopting with regard to such applications?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Since July, 1940, the policy has been to suspend all applications for naturalization except those from women who have lost British nationality by marriage and a few applications from individuals whose immediate naturalization is required in the national interest for special purposes connected with the war effort. The total number of certificates granted in such special cases does not amount to 50 in the last three years.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is the British policy of using aliens not the right one? Ought we not to fight to the last foreigner?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

National Fire Service

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Home Secretary whether members of the National Fire Service, stationed away from home, are entitled to the billeting allowance when granted leave apart from their annual holiday?

Mr. H. Morrison: Lodging allowance is not withheld if a fireman is absent for a week-end or for an equivalent mid-week break, but it has not hitherto been payable in respect of longer periods of absence. I have, however, recently reviewed the application of this rule to the cases of men and women on the 48/24 duty system who are not in a position to take weekend leave but may be given a break of four days every six weeks, and have decided that in the case of the lower ranks, whose allowance is at the minimum rate of 24s. 6d. a week, there will in future be no abatement of the allowance if the man's absence from the area where he is serving does not exceed three nights, and that three nights' allowance will be paid if the absence extends to four nights. The provision to be made for members of the National Fire Service in higher ranks, whose allowances are at higher rates, is still under consideration.

Prosecutions

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state up to the last available date, the number of per sons prosecuted and imprisoned, male and female, respectively, for refusing to carry out orders relating to air-raid precautions, Civil Defence, fire-watching and kindred duties?

Mr. H. Morrison: The answer which I gave last Thursday to a somewhat similar Question by my hon. Friend applies also to this Question.

Police War Reserve (Compensation for Injuries)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that, whereas a policeman who is injured on his way to duty has a claim for compensation, a member of the Police War Reserve injured in precisely similar circumstances has no such claim unless the injury arises from a civil emergency, he will take steps to remove this apparent anomaly?

Mr. H. Morrison: The distinction to which my hon. Friend refers is due to the fact that the pension conditions of the regular police are governed by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and those of the Police War Reserve, like the Civil Defence Services, by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. Even if it were practicable to assimilate the pension conditions of the Police War Reserve to those of the regular police, to do so would only create new anomalies in this respect as between the Police War Reserve and other war-time services.

Mr. Cocks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the Police War Reserve are told by the inspectors that a policeman has to consider himself on duty from the moment he leaves his lodgings or his house to the moment when he returns to it and that if a member of the Police War Reserve falls off a bicycle and meets with serious injury he gets no compensation, whereas a policeman does? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this difference causes very great resentment?

Mr. Morrison: That is hardly the Question on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to put his Question down.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it the policy of my right hon. Friend that justice must not be done in case somebody else might require it?

Identity Cards (Thefts)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Home Secretary what thefts there have been of new type identity cards; and under what circumstances have they been stolen?

Mr. H. Morrison: Such cases are not reported to me in the ordinary course. I am informed that there have been two cases in which theft of these cards on a considerable scale has occurred in London. In one case, proceedings are pending before the court, while the other is still the subject of investigation. In the circumstances, it would not be in the public interest that I should make any statement about them.

Sir A. Southby: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of taking disciplinary action against the people who are responsible for the safe custody of these things, since they are the people at fault?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir, I will keep that suggestion in mind, but it would be a matter for another Minister.

Wardens' Injuries (Home Guard Training)

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Home Secretary whether wardens who are injured while undergoing recommended training with the Home Guard are entitled to compensation, either by the Home Guard or Civil Defence?

Mr. H. Morrison: Part-time members of the Civil Defence Wardens' Service, who enrol also for service in the Home Guard, are covered by the prevailing conditions of Home Guard service, including compensation for personal injury, on all occasions when they are engaged on that service, including Home Guard training.

Business Premises (Fire Prevention.)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Home Secretary the number and description of the appropriate authorities whose duties include the inspection of warehouses together with their contents and fire-fighting and prevention appliances?

Mr. H. Morrison: The appropriate authorities for warehouses and other business premises are set out in Article 14 of the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) (No. 2) Order, 1941, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. In the case of Government premises, the appropriate Department is the Department by which, or for whose purposes, the premises are occupied.

Mr. White: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to have the existing procedure looked at to see whether considerable saving of time and labour is not possible on the part of the inspecting authorities and the people who have to undergo these visits? Can he avoid authorities giving contradictory instructions to the same people?

Mr. Morrison: That matter has been very carefully considered, and while I should be perfectly willing to consider any further information which my hon. Friend may let me have, it is the case, generally speaking, that there is only one inspecting authority for one set of premises. If we tried to centralise the whole of this, work, we should have different Departments inspecting the same

premises for different purposes. On balance, I think the present system is more convenient.

Norfolk Broads (Revocation of Restrictions)

Colonel Medlicott: asked the Home Secretary whether he is, now in a position to make any further statement in regard to the removal of the restrictions on the use of the Norfolk Broads?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that an Order is being made by the Regional Commissioner, after consultation with the appropriate authorities, revoking the restrictions on the mooring, anchoring or keeping of boats on certain waters, rivers or broads which were imposed by his directions in 1941. I should, however, make it clear that the navigation of boats on tidal waters in this areas will be subject to the requirements of the Admiralty Orders which restrict navigation on tidal waters to those vessels in respect of which permits are issued by the naval authority concerned. I should also point out that vessels in this part of the country are still required to be immobilised when left unattended, whether on tidal or other waters.

Vessels on Inland Waters (Immobilisation)

Major Petherick: asked the Home Secretary whether there have been any prosecutions under the Vessels on Inland Waters (Immobilisation) Order, 1940 (A) which is now being revoked in respect of certain areas under Statutory Rules and Orders, 1943, No. 772, of 20th May?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. There have been a number of successful prosecutions.

Major Petherick: Can my right hon. Friend say how many?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot. There are no complete statistics on the matter, and the labour of collecting them would be out of proportion in existing circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REFUGEE, HAMPSTEAD

Colonel Burton: asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to prevent Paul Topfer, of Hampstead, a


German refugee, from continuing to be a nuisance at the factor}.' referred to at the Leicester Assizes?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that this man left the factory referred to in October, 1941, and, so far as I am aware, no action is called for on my part.

Colonel Burton: If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of the case I have in mind, will he be good enough to look at it?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir. I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNING VESSEL, MERSEYSIDE (FIREMEN'S GALLANTRY)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a number of firemen, on the Merseyside, who were called to a 7,000 ton vessel lying in dock; and what official recognition has been taken of the gallantry in the face of serious risk shown by Divisional Officer Ellis, Staff Officer of the 20th Fire Force, Column Officer Keanly and Column Officer Humble, who were in charge of the fire-boat on this occasion?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The men concerned did their duty in a manner which reflected credit on themselves and the National Fire Service, but I am advised that risks as grave are commonly faced by members of the National Fire Service in the discharge of their duties, and I do not think any question of special recognition arises in this instance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether he can state either the highest or lowest all-in estimate accepted from any contractor for each type of the 3,000 rural cottages?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health how many tenders for rural houses have been submitted to him for approval; how many has he approved; and the amounts of the highest and lowest tenders?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): In accordance with the statement of policy made in another place on

4th May the Government have reviewed the arrangements for building houses under this scheme in the light of tenders which have now been submitted by a number of local authorities in different parts of the country. Tenders for 220 houses have been submitted to me, and tenders for 54 houses have been approved. Of those approved, the lowest is £747 and the highest is £937: to these figures is to be added the cost of land, roads, sewers and architects' fees, which in the first case is £100, and in the latter £51. Local authorities have been informed to-day by a circular, copies, of which are being placed in the Library, that if satisfactory tenders for houses of the types already issued to them cannot be obtained, they should for these emergency war-time houses adopt an amended plan for smaller houses in blocks of four which has been drawn up by my noble Friend the Minister of Works, and that if they cannot obtain satisfactory tenders from local builders for the erection of these houses, he will arrange for their erection at an appropriate figure by one of several large builders with experience of war-time building. These plans will be sent to local authorities, and copies will be available in the Library. In those districts where tenders have been or are approved building operations should start at once. It is intended that the alternative arrangements for carrying out the scheme through the agency of selected larger builders will come into operation in those districts in which tenders are not approved by 8th July.

Mr. Bossom: Seeing the great time that has been taken to bring these cottages to this stage, is it not desirable to turn the matter of building all of them over to the Ministry of Works to avoid any further waste of time?

Mr. Brown: On the contrary, time would be lost now where satisfactory tenders have been or are likely to be Obtained.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister state the figure he has in mind for the rent of these houses? Can he give an assurance that not too heavy a burden will fall either on those who will have to occupy them or on the local authorities?

Mr. Brown: Rents were arranged under the original scheme—8s. 6d. a week for non-parlour houses and 10s. for parlour houses.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say why, after all this time, tenders for only 54 cottages have been approved? Can he give any sound explanation?

Mr. Brown: The explanation is quite clear. Some of the tenders were very high, and the Government as a whole felt it necessary to review the situation in that light.

Earl Winterton: If that is so, why did the Minister make the confident assertion a month ago that he was going to commence building in April and hoped that it would be finished by harvest? Why did he not show some prevision in this matter?

Mr. Brown: The answer is that since that statement was made the cost of building has risen a great deal.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that in Wiltshire urgently needed farm cottages which the Office of Works undertook to finish by February are not finished now? As a matter of fact, all that is to be seen on the ground are concrete posts and heaps of bricks. What assurance is there that the Office of Works will do better in the future?

Mr. Brown: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is not the delay due to the answer we received yesterday—240 bricks a day?

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built by the rural district councils of England and Wales during the years 1924 to 1939?

Mr. Brown: One hundred and twenty thousand.

Timber (Substitutes)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has given special attention to the probability that timber for house-building purposes will be in short supply for a considerable period; whether suitable substitutes will be available; and whether these substitutes will be utilised in the 3,000 rural, cottages about to be constructed?

Mr. E. Brown: The, answer to the first two parts of the Question is that attention is being, given to the matter in consultation with other Ministers concerned and that the Inter-Departmental Committee

on methods of house construction is examining all alternative forms of construction. As regards the third part of the Question, the extent to which timber is utilisable and the degree to which substitutes are to be adopted are indicated in the notes on materials and design and the specification notes prepared for the guidance of local authorities by the Ministry of Works, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I am glad to be able to add that it has now been found possible, as a special measure which cannot form a precedent, to make available timber for the staircase, for the covering of the floor in the living room or parlour, and for joist and boarded floors for the bedrooms.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the question of timber for future house construction is a very grave one indeed? In view of the first part of his answer, could hon. Members be told when results are obtained?

Mr. Brown: I will consider that, in consultation with my colleagues who are concerned in this particular work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Panel Doctors

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give details of the statutory schemes which, in the case of insurance practitioners absent from their practices by reason of war service, abrogate Clause 11 (7) of the Terms of Service scheduled to the Medical Benefit Regulations, 1936, defining the responsibility of practitioners for all the acts and omissions of any practitioners acting as their deputies or assistants; and in what way that provision has been legally abrogated or modified where there is no statutory scheme applicable to an area and the Protection of Practices Scheme exclusively applies?

Mr. E. Brown: I will send my hon. Friend copies of the provisions applicable to statutory and voluntary schemes which place a practitioner attending an absentee practitioner's patients in the position of a principal in respect of those patients for the purposes of the Medical Benefit Regulations and Terms of Service.

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that owing to the widespread call-up of younger practitioners


the contract between panel doctors and the insurance committees cannot be continued, and in view of that what will be done when the patient cannot get service?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the Minister mean to say that the regulations governing panel practice are being carried out just now?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the provisions applicable to the scheme which I will send him.

Radiology

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the students of the only post-graduate course in medical radiology at present operating in this country have protested against the way it is conducted; and whether, in view of the present urgent need for radiologists, both in civil practice and the Services, he will consider exercising some measure of control over the British Institute of Radiology who are the responsible body?

Mr. E. Brown: The method of conducting this course is a matter for the university authorities and is not within my province. In any case I am informed that the British Institute of Radiology is not responsible for the course, but provides premises and other facilities for lectures arranged on behalf of London University through its Special Advisory Board for the Diploma in Medical Radiology. My officers are discussing with this latter body the arrangements that can be made in the coming academic year to provide post-graduate instruction for suitable students, in order to meet the requirements of civil hospitals and the Services.

Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the Institute is responsible for the granting of a diploma, and that in consequence of the conditions it lays down it is held by technicians attempting to do their work properly that they are being handicapped?

Mr. Brown: I have said that we are discussing that particular aspect of the question.

Penicillin Clinical Trials Committee

Major Lyons: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give the names of the committee established by the Medical Research Council in connection with penicillin; and whether this committee is charged with the direction and conduct of clinical trials?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The Committee is known as the Pencillin Clinical Trials Committee; its function is to organise clinical trials with pencillin. With permission I will circulate the names of the ten members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Lyons: Is there co-operation or consultation between that Committee and the Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The function of the latter Committee is primarily concerned with production, although it has to take clinical requirements into account. The Committee with which I am concerned has to organise and supervise clinical trials. There is considerable ground of common interest between the two.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right bon. Gentleman satisfied with the attempts now being made to manufacture this invaluable preparation?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Very active steps are being taken.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Has penicillin proved its value?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that has been established.

Following are the names:

Professor H. R. Dean (Chairman),
Dr. A. N. Drury,
Professor A. Fleming,
Professor H. W. Florey,
Dr. Percival Hartley,
Mr. R. Vaughan Hudson,
Dr. C. N. Scott,
Dr. J. W. Trevan,
Professor R. V. Christie (Secretary), and
Professor L. P. Garrod (Assistant Secretary).

National Health Service

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health (1) on what facts he bases his opinion that the imple-


mentation of Assumption B by the introduction of a salaried medical service is now in the discard;
(2) how he proposes to obtain the views of the doctors in the services and those who are not members of any organisation on the future of medical practice;
(3) how he proposes to obtain the views of the people on a State Medical Service and on the extension of the present system of. medical practice, respectively, before he issues a white Paper?

Mr. E. Brown: I have repeatedly tried to make it clear that the recently-resumed discussions with the representative committee of medical men and women are to be regarded as only a preliminary and non-committal exchange of ideas, that I hope as the next step to publish the Government's appreciation of the main issues involved, and that this publication will afford everyone—including those in the Forces—a full opportunity of open and public discussion before final decisions are taken.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, why do the British Medical Association quote him as saying that the salaried medical service is in discard?

Mr. Brown: I am not responsible for what the British Medical Association say.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the future health service must deal primarily with the needs of the people, and not with those of the doctors?

Mr. Brown: The needs of the people are the primary issue, and my hon. Friend understands that there are many other bodies besides doctors to be consulted.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Did not health come before there were any doctors?

Mr. Storey: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that what he is seeking is not a State medical service, but a comprehensive health service, based on co-operation between the medical profession, the voluntary agencies and the local authorities?

Mr. Brown: That has already been made clear in more than one Government statement.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the medical profession repudiate any idea of becoming full-time civil servants?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Works of Art (Purchase Tax)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the high prices now being paid at sales for pictures and objects d'art; and whether these transactions are subjected to Purchase Tax?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): Purchase tax is payable if the goods are specified in the first or second column of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, and are being sold by a registered to a non-registered person. I cannot say how far this applies to the sales in question.

Sir A. Southby: Will my hon. Friend go into the matter, since if purchases of this character, involving very large sums, are not being taxed they may form means whereby black market and other illicit profits may be tucked away?

Mr. Assheton: I understand that very great complications would attend any attempt to widen the Purchase Tax to cover all the sales that my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

Scottish Bank Notes (Cashing, England)

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can make any further statement about the cashing of Scottish bank notes in England?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir. I am glad to inform the House that the clearing banks have reviewed their practice and have decided to make no charge when they accept Scottish bank notes for encashment at any of their branches in England and Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICES

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister whether any action is proposed by the Government to carry out the suggestions in Section 19 of the Report on the Women's Services, that members of the Auxiliary Services should form part of the Armed Forces for work in Europe and elsewhere after the war?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The consideration of this question has taken rather longer than I had supposed. I hope, however, to be in a position to reply very shortly after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH AFRICAN OPERATIONS (CAPTURED MATERIAL)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a White Paper showing the fighting material that was taken from the Germans and Italians, detailing the size of the guns, anti-tank guns, tanks, etc.?

Mr. Attlee: These details have not yet been forwarded from North Africa, but I doubt whether it will be desirable to issue a White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extreme dissatisfaction felt and expressed by the people of Wales with respect to post-war planning and reconstruction, he will now introduce legislation for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep and profound concern that exists to-day in Wales, which suffered so grievously after the last war, at the apparent inability of the Government to make any preparations for post-war reconstruction, and has he no better answer to give than that to these people, who cannot forget their experiences after the last war?

Mr. Attlee: That is not strictly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend put about a Secretary of State for Wales. I am not aware of the feeling to which he has alluded in his Question as widespread, or that there is a general desire at the present time that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. David Grenfell: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Prime Minister as to whether the time has not come when special attention should be paid to the condition of industry in Wales and to the very gloomy prospects facing that country when the war comes to an end?

Mr. Attlee: I quite agree. The matter is being investigated very closely. There is an Advisory Committee on the whole question of Wales, on which I think there is very full representation. I assure my hon. Friend that the question of the future of Wales is not being neglected by any means.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the anomaly that while Scotland has a Secretary of State and a large number of Government offices in Scotland, there is nothing of that kind for Wales?

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Scotland also wants an independent Parliament?

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Poultry Feeding-stuffs

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Food for the purpose of providing an additional grain ration to the backyard poultry-keepers; and, in this connection, with a view to safeguarding existing supplies of grain, will he instruct the war agricultural county committees to utilise this autumn an increased acreage of unfilled soil which is available on the golf courses throughout the country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Rations for backyard poultry have recently been increased by 25 per cent., and the balancer meal provided for them includes a proportion of ground grain. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) on 13th May.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that last winter many people throughout the country got no more than two to three eggs a month, in some cases only one? Does he realise that it is eggs we want? Will he look at that? That is an egg. And will he look at that? That is a golf ball. Does he realise that there is mile after mile of fairway uncultivated


throughout the country? Should not every golf club be compelled to make some contribution to the national larder?

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. Might I ask why the hon. Gentleman has got those things he has just exhibited?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can we have them placed in the Library?

Golf Courses (Ploughing-up)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state, to the latest available date, the approximate total acreage of land in England and Wales which is made use of by golf clubs; the approximate total acreage of this land which has been ploughed up for growing corn or cultivated for vegetable growing; and whether, in view of the fact that dairy farmers have been compelled to plough up grassland, which is normally unsuited for corn growing, he will, in order to increase the milk supply, take steps to allow this land to revert to grass and institute a more vigorous campaign for the ploughing up of the golf courses?

Mr. Hudson: I have no information as to the total acreage of land used by golf clubs or the total acreage ploughed up and cultivated. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) on 13th May. Any contribution to be made by golf courses to the tillage area must be in addition to, and not in substitution for, that of dairy farms. The ploughing of grassland on dairy farms need not entail any reduction of the milk supply.

Mr. De la Bère: Did not my right hon. Friend tell us only yesterday that we must have more winter milk? Why is it that these hundreds of thousands of acres remain fairways, with no corn or hay being produced on them at all? It is not right.

Mr. Hudson: They would not produce milk.

Mr. De la Bère: They would produce corn, which would produce milk.

Growing Crops (Prosecutions)

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many pro-

secutions have been instigated by his Department in respect of growing crops?

Mr. Hudson: Proceedings have been taken in 630 cases in England and Wales for non-compliance with Cultivation Orders, breaches of the Horticultural Cropping Orders and damage to or waste of growing crops or of harvested crops still on farms.

Warble Fly

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the widespread damage being caused to hides by the warble fly; and what action he proposes to take about it?

Mr. Hudson: I am aware of the damage caused through the warble fly. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend copies of Press notices advising stock owners as to the action which they should take.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some districts up to 70 per cent. of the hides and meat are damaged through this pest, and, in view of the urgent necessity both for leather and beef, could not steps be taken by the Ministry to enforce action?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. and gallant Friend had better read the notice.

Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that climatic conditions have caused a plague of this pest this year, and will he call the attention of pests officers of county war agricultural committees to the need for action? Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer that question, because the matter is of some importance? Will he give it special attention?

Mr. Hudson: I am aware of the position.

Sir J. Lamb: Is not there a scarcity of the dressing which the farmers use? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to increase the amount?

Mr. Hudson: I will send my hon. Friend, too, a copy of the notice, and he will see that that point is dealt with.

Land Reclamation (Rent)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure that the farmer who reclaims a few acres of land and makes it able to


yield crops is allowed to have it rent free and that the landlord should not be able to claim it?

Mr. Hudson: The rent to be paid for land that is to be reclaimed is normally a matter for ordinary negotiation. I have no power to intervene except in so far as it might be necessary in order to avoid prejudice to food production.

Women's Land Army

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will establish hostels for members of the Women's Land Army in the Furness and Lune Valley districts of Lonsdale?

Mr. Hudson: I am advised that, as there is other accommodation available in these districts, there is no immediate necessity for such a course; but I am watching the position, particularly in the Furness district, where the billeting situation is not very satisfactory.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave doubt whether billets can be found? Where there is difficulty in getting buildings for these girls, could he not requisition houses for them?

Mr. Hudson: There are plenty of billets in the Lune area, and in the Furness area farmers' requirements are being met by male labour.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Could the right hon. Gentleman not give an undertaking to make a general survey of the welfare arrangements, not only of his Department but of other Departments, such as the Ministry of Labour? They are most unsatisfactory.

Italian Prisoners of War

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for the provision of Italian prisoner-of-war labour for the Furness and Lune Valley districts of Lonsdale?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. A prisoner-of-war camp is being established in South Westmorland, from which I hope that prisoners will shortly be available in this district.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman use German prisoners also?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (CIRCULATION)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the limited number of copies available, and the restricted circulation of Hansard throughout the country in clubs, institutions and Service messes, he will give an assurance that it is not the policy of the Government to restrict that circulation, and that immediate steps will be taken to ensure that copies are made available to all appropriate bodies who wish to become regular subscribers?

Mr. Assheton: There is ho restriction on circulation, and copies are and always have been available to any person or body willing to subscribe.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is difficult for the public to obtain copies? Is he aware that many people think that the Government are not anxious to have Hansard widely circulated, and that it may be they do not care for the searching supplementary questions it contains?

Mr. Assheton: We shall be very anxious to let anybody have a copy who is prepared to pay for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Bombing Losses, Germany and Western Europe

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen were lost as a result of the loss of 707 bomber aircraft over Germany and Western Europe during the four months ending 30th April; and how many of that number are known to be prisoners of war?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Air has regularly answered this Question during the past four or five months? Why is it undesirable now?

Captain Balfour: The hon. Member must be thinking of the next Question. This Question has not been answered in the past few months. It would help the enemy.

Mr. Stokes: I beg my right hon. and gallant Friend's pardon.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many British bombers were lost over Germany and Western Europe during May; and the total for the first five months of the year?

Captain Balfour: 252 British bomber aircraft operating from this country were reported lost over Germany and Western Europe during May, 1943, bringing the total for the first five months of the year to 874.

Aircrews (Commissioning)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the proposal to promote all members, of Canadian aircrews to commissioned rank; and whether he has any similar proposals to make for the Royal Air Force?

Captain Balfour: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement given yesterday in reply to the Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockport (Wing Commander Hulbert), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Bellenger: Had any consultations been entered into between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department and the Canadian Air Ministry before they reached their decision?

Captain Balfour: Yes; there is no real dispute between Canada and ourselves. The commissioning of the Royal Canadian Air Force aircrews is covered in the Ottawa Agreement which I was negotiating in June, 1942, and to which both Governments fully adhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOST AIR-LINER

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the harmful effects of the German radio version of the attack on the unarmed Lisbon civil transport aeroplane, suggesting that the machine was to all intents and purposes a Douglas fighting machine and that the crew baled out, leaving the passengers to their fate, he proposes to deal with these allegations and make a full statement on the matter?

Captain Balfour: The statements made by the German radio were, as usual, completely untrue. As my right hon. Friend

stated in the House yesterday, the aircraft plainly bore international civil aviation markings. The registration letters were, in fact, two feet high. The aircraft was, therefore, readily distinguishable from a military aircraft, apart from other differences. For technical reasons concerned with exits, the allegation that the crew abandoned the aircraft, leaving the passengers to their fate, is just a despicable lie.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PAPER SUPPLIES, READING MATTER)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Production the present position of paper supplies; and whether he feels it possible to increase the quota of paper to provide reading matter for the Fighting Services?

Mr. Garro Jones: It is necessary to exercise the utmost economy in the use of paper, but, as the hon. and gallant Member has been informed, proposals for increasing the supply of reading matter to the Fighting Services are under consideration.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend aware that an increase of literally one-half per cent. in the present allowance would solve the problem?

Mr. Garro Jones: My hon. and gallant Friend has been informed two or three times, I think, in the last few days that the factor he has just mentioned and many others are being actively considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY TRAIN ACCIDENT, BOMB CRATER

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can give any information in connection with the train that plunged into a bomb crater, at a place of which he has been informed; and how many people were killed and injured?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary.to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I regret that this accident caused the death of the driver and fireman of the locomotive involved, and injury to two other railway servants and to three passengers. I understand that authority had been given to the signalman to allow the train to proceed at slow speed. This was an error of judgment. The examination of the line had already been begun, and


until this examination was complete, the train ought to have been held. Since the accident happened, the regulations have been amplified to guard against a similar occurrence in future. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy with the families of the two railwaymen who lost their Jives in the performance of their duty.

Mr. Thorne: Was not this danger known at Liverpool Street Station before the train started?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would not like to say that it was known at Liverpool Street Station before the train started, but I am clear that the regulations were not quite strict enough for avoiding accidents of this kind, and they have been tightened up.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCER-GAS VEHICLES (CARBON MONOXIDE)

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport in view of the danger of poisoning by carbon monoxide from producer-gas vehicles, what special steps are being taken to warn those concerned of this danger?

Mr. Noel-Baker: A note on the possible danger from carbon monoxide has been sent recently to every operator of public service vehicles which are driven by producer-gas. The danger is also explained in the Manual of Instructions which will be distributed with each producer-gas unit allocated to operators of goods vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES RATIONING

Rubber Boots (Deterioration)

Major Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the continuing deterioration in large stocks of rubber boots in the possession of distributors; and whether he will take steps to release them into essential services before they become useless?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I am not aware of any general deterioration in the stocks of rubber boots held by distributors. I am, however, informed that a comparatively small number from

one particular area of supply have deteriorated. Arrangements were made earlier this year for some of these boots to be made available free of both permit and coupons to building and civil engineering contractors, and it is hoped to find similar uses for the remainder.

Socks

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given further consideration to the advisability of asking for less than three coupons for each pair of socks purchased, in view of the fact that the socks now obtainable are not very durable and seriously deteriorate after comparatively few washings?

Captain Waterhouse: The heavy demand for wool socks for the Services limits the yarn and the machinery capacity available for manufacture for the civilian market. Steps are, however, being taken to improve the quality of certain lines about which there have been complaints.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIRED MOTOR-CARS

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the effect and alteration made by the new Order in relation to self-drive and other hired motor-cars and the date from which the Order operates?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The new Order, copies of which were on sale on 1st June, came into operation on 7th June. As regards self-drive hire-cars, its principal effect is that these cannot be hired for any journey, even within the "inner radius," without a declaration showing a permitted purpose. As regards self-drive and chauffeur-driven hire-cars alike, the Order brings continuous hirings under control. For the other new features, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Order itself and to the Explanatory Note printed at the end.

Major Lyons: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether these are not the very restrictions which have been before the Ministry time and time again and declined by the Department?

Mr. Lloyd: They have not been declined.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House be good enough to state the Business to be taken on the resumption after the Whitsuntide Recess?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for the first series of Sitting Days after the Recess will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Foreign Service Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Committee and remaining stages of the Nurses (Scotland) Bill; and of the Settled Land and Trustee Acts Bill [Lords].
Second Sitting Day—Supply (10th allotted day):—Committed; A Debate will take place on the coal situation.
Third Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Greenwood: Would the Leader of the House do something to facilitate a Debate after we come back after Whitsuntide on the shipping problem?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly look into that. We shall have to consider how we can fit that in with other business and what will be the best way of taking it, but I am quite willing to consider it if there is a general desire for a Debate.

Mr. Graham White: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government will be in a position on the resumption of the House to make a statement on their, conclusions with regard to the Committee on Electoral Machinery?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend is aware, we had hoped to be able to make that statement before the Whitsuntide Recess, and I hope that it will not be long delayed after we resume.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the publication of the Afforestation Report, he can give time at an early date after we return for a discussion on that matter?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I would like to arrange that. I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House hot to have it just yet, in order to give Members a little time in which to consider the Report before we debate it.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that post-war shipping is at least as important as post-war aviation? May we not therefore have a Debate on the question of post-war shipping at some convenient time after we resume?

Mr. Eden: I rather imagined that that was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I will contrive to have some arrangement of that kind ready for us after we get back.

Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a Debate on agriculture when the House reassembles?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I think that that could be contrived, too.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill will be available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Eden: I think it is available now.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL

That they have agreed to

Amendment to—

Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

That they give leave to the Viscount Bridgeman to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Fighting Services appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 22nd June."—[Mr. Eden.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton): I want to use the opportunity of the Adjournment to raise a matter affecting the status of the Dominion of Newfoundland. This became a matter of current politics some months ago, when, as a result of a cable which I received from the Board of Trade of Newfoundland, I asked a Question in the House of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. He answered that Question, that these representations had been received, but he was careful to explain that the Board of Trade was not a responsible body like our Board of Trade in this country, but a group of rather inconsiderable business people in Newfoundland.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Attlee): I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to put words into my mouth. I did not say they were inconsiderable; I merely said they were a body of merchant traders, differentiating from a Government Department.

Mr. Maxton: I had not hoped to bring the right hon. Gentleman to his feet quite so soon in my speech. I did not wish to misrepresent him, but I thought his answer suggested that this Board of Trade was not to be taken seriously as being a representative point of view coming from Newfoundland. That seemed to me to be the tone and tenor of his answer. However, a week or so later, probably in response to his reply, I got a further cable from a number of trade union leaders, supporting the view that was put forward by the Newfoundland Board of Trade asking for restoration of self-government to the Island. Then there was a lapse until one day, suddenly, the right hon. Gentleman announced to the House that he was sending an informal Parliamentary deputation to Newfoundland. Then I became seriously concerned about the business, because it seemed to me that that was the response to the requests that were coming to Newfoundland for the res-

toration of self-government and that the sending of three Members of this House on an informal Mission was not the correct answer to give to the Newfoundland people when they asked for restoration of Dominion status.
I have been misunderstood by all three hon. Gentlemen who are members of that Mission. They seemed to think that I was objecting to their having a trip to Newfoundland. Well, a lot of charges and criticism can be and have been made against me, but I have never been a spoilsport. If two or three of the boys are to have a bit of fun, I say, "Good luck,'' That has always been my attitude and always will be my attitude. I shall regret the absence from this House for an extended period of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert)—whose naval duties, I imagine, have prevented him from being present to-day, and the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). I have some doubts as to how my friends above the Gangway will be able to comport themselves in Admiralty Debates without the services of their expert. I shall also regret the absence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston). I am quite sure our loss will be Newfoundland's gain. I hope a good time will be had by all. There is a more imposing and more responsible delegation going to Canada, which also has my good wishes, if they are of any use to them.
If the Dominions Secretary will excuse my borrowing a phrase from him, I think the sending of a Mission to Newfoundland is a most irresponsible way of dealing with the problem which presents itself there at the present time. This House, in 1933, on the advice of the then Dominions Secretary, the right hon. J. H. Thomas, because it had been reported to him that the financial affairs of Newfoundland were not being conducted with complete rectitude, was so horrified that he decided that the only way to cope with the situation was by taking away from the Dominion its right to govern itself and put in brokers. I was horrified at that, and the present Dominions Secretary was even more horrified. At that time he was on the Opposition side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "That makes a difference."] On the Second Reading of the Bill which was to take away Newfoundland's independence the right hon. Gentle-


man moved, on behalf of his friends, a Reasoned Amendment. He said:
I beg to move, to leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
'whilst anxious to relieve the-distress of the Newfoundland fishermen and their families, this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which, while imposing an unjustifiable burden upon British taxpayers by the provision of grants and guarantees in the interests of banks, moneylenders and stockholders, makes no specific provision for substituting the inefficient and vicious system of competitive capitalism, truck, and exploitation by an economic system organized in the interests of the community.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1933; col. 223, Vol. 24.]
Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to make a speech which occupied half a dozen columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, going from one form of vituperation to a more extreme form. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who followed him, did not use quite the same terminology—they were not then the close political associates they are to-day—but at any rate his speech was on the same lines. Every responsible person who took part in that Debate, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the then Dominions Secretary, was very regretful that this step should have to be taken. The Government of the day only got' the Measure through after a very extended Committee stage which lasted all through one day and into the next and in which I participated on 18 occasions. The Measure was accepted by the House only after the right hon. Gentleman the then Dominions Secretary and the other spokesman for the Government on that occasion had laid stress on the very temporary nature of the step which was to be taken. It was said that it was to be only until such time as Newfoundland was in a position to meet its external indebtedness and that when it reached the stage of being able to meet its external financial liabilities its Government would be restored to it again. We have now reached that stage in Newfoundland, and there is no need for committees of investigation, formal or informal. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman lay stress on the temporary nature of the Measure, but the Statute itself, although a very clumsy instrument, made up of the Bill, First and Second Schedules, and all the rest of it, did include a part of the Report of the Royal Commission which had been

out there under Lord Amulree. This is an integral part of the Statute, and it says:
Your Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would, for their part, assume general responsibility for the, finances of the Island until such time as it may become self-supporting again, and would, in particular, make such arrangements as may be deemed just and practicable with a view to securing to Newfoundland a reduction in the present burden of the public debt.
It would be understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting responsible Government, on request from the people of Newfoundland would be restored.
I call attention to the last words. This House is bound, in honour and in law, that when the Island has become self-supporting again self-Government will be restored, on request from the people of Newfoundland. Now, I gather that this Government is proposing to quibble about the words "on request from the people of Newfoundland." The Board of Trade apparently will not do. Obviously they are the business community, concentrated in St. John's, the capital, and probably with a say in the political affairs of the Island out of proportion to their numerical strength.

Sir Granville Gibson (Pudsey): May I interrupt my hon. Friend? Would not a request such as he refers to be a request from the Government, as representative of the people—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is no Government."]—or from the Governor whereas the term "Board of Trade" in the whole of Canada, and in Newfoundland, simply means the chamber of commerce.

Mr. Maxton: And is it then the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman that chambers of commerce should be ignored?

Sir G. Gibson: Not at all. I am only pointing out that they do not necessarily represent the whole of the people.

Mr. Maxton: I was just coming to that point. I was about to say that in this country, as in Newfoundland, chambers of commerce have a big say in the politics of the country, although they represent only a section of the community.

Sir G. Gibson: I want my hon. Friend to realise that I am only trying to help him. I want him to bring' before the House a proper picture—a true and accurate picture.

Mr. Maxton: Nobody welcomes help more than I do, and there is no one in this House to whom it is more seldom forthcoming, but I do not think that on this particular point I am in any difficulty. It has been made plain that the Board of Trade in Newfoundland is not the same as the Board of Trade in this country, though, as some of my hon. Friends will remember, there have been misunderstandings here also, about the functions of our Board of Trade. But in Newfoundland it is a chamber of commerce which represents business interests in St. John's—a minority. But surely the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Gibson) is not going to say that it should be entirely ignored because it happens to be a minority. If so, it would seem that I have, so far, misunderstood his general attitude on political affairs. I am not suggesting that a request from this chamber of commerce would be a request from the people of Newfoundland, but certainly it would be much nearer being a request from the people of Newfoundland than would be a request from the Governor, who represents this country. It would certainly represent the voice of the people of Newfoundland much more than the Commission of Government which we put in there.
I am not going to say that we should do whatever the chamber of commerce ask us to do, simply because they have asked us to do it. That is a thing which, generally, I should view with great suspicion, but, as I have already said, I have had a cable from representative leaders of trade unions in the country, and since then I have had a very useful document—I imagine it has also been sent to the Secretary of State for the Dominions—from a King's Counsel, Mr. Richard Cramm, who has what is known as "a good address" in St. John's, Newfoundland. His address is "Royal Bank of Canada Buildings," which conveys an impression of integrity and solidity. He is acting on behalf of different sections of the community, and he encloses a resolution of 29th March of the Newfoundland Board of Trade; a resolution adopted by the presidents of six unions on 13th April; a letter written by a well-known medical man of the Island, who is head of one of the big public medical services; an editorial from an important weekly newspaper; letters from other representative citizens of Newfoundland, and an

Address to His Majesty, which it is proposed to have circulated and signed by the people of Newfoundland. So that the people of Newfoundland are, obviously, taking the necessary steps to get a request put before the Dominions Secretary which will be a representative request from the people of Newfoundland. If that request comes along, I do not see how, on the Statute, the right hon. Gentleman has any grounds for resisting the immediate restoration of self-government to the Island.
It may be said that there was some funny work going on among the politicians, but I think that has been grossly exaggerated. I have also in mind that politicians at all times and in all lands have been subject to the charge that they are not above placing their personal interests before the public well-being. Indeed, a large section of the population in every country believes it is the exceptional thing for a politician to put the public weal above his personal welfare. Even I, who in these matters am, I think, as neatly above suspicion as Caesar's wife, yesterday received an anonymous letter which showed that the writer had not a particularly high estimate of my character. He has no personal basis for it, but is just repeating this constant charge levelled against political persons. I think that in the case of Newfoundland there was a tremendous lot of exaggeration about the wrongness of the politicians and that what happened in Newfoundland in 1933 was what happened in Britain in 1931, what happened in Germany and what happened in the United States. Here we call it an economic blizzard. It brought down a Labour Government and brought in a National Government. That was enough for us here. In Germany exactly the same kind of financial problem overthrew democracy and brought Nazism into power. In the United States at a slightly later date the same thing happened—a collapse of the financial capitalist system, new deals, etc., widespread bankruptcy, and mass unemployment.
Newfoundland, with a population of 250,000, some of the hardest-working people who inhabit the surface of the globe, men engaged in the most arduous, dangerous and disagreeable forms of work, dragging a living out of the raw contact with nature, fishing, mining, and


lumbering—these people, faced with the same financial problem, had taken away from them the right to govern themselves which they had had over an extended-period. There was need for something to be done to straighten out their affairs, as things had to be done here to straighten out the affairs of this country, but I think the situation could have been adequately met by the sending-out of some competent Civil servant, someone of the order of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, to take charge of the books and get things straightened out. That was the size of the problem. The Commission of Government has been in control during these 10 years, and the conditions for the restoration of self-government have been more than adequately fulfilled. The debt charges, which were far and away beyond the capacity of the Island to meet, are now being met regularly and in full. Their National Debt is diminishing. Some of the most awkward parts of it have been extinguished. Each year the payment of debt charges, interest and sinking fund has still left a surplus, and, while it is very difficult to get precise information about the Island now, although I was helped by the Dominions Secretary to some extent, because regular annual reports have ceased to be published, it is a fact that they are having a surplus each year on their Budget and lending money to this country, I gather free of interest. One can see the total extinction of the whole of the Newfoundland Debt within a measurable period of time. I wish I could see that for this country. We never dream of applying to ourselves financially the same standards that we insist on applying to Newfoundland. The debt charges, from being a huge part of their annual Budget, have sunk into an insignificant fraction of the whole.
I know the right hon. Gentleman will tell me it is true that the financial position of the Island has improved out of all knowledge in the last three or four years. Instead of raising a revenue in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 dollars, they have been steadily going up and are raising a revenue of 25,000,000 dollars in the current year, but I know he will say this is a fictitious war prosperity: What is to happen after the war? I am very disturbed in my own mind when I ask that question about the Clyde, because we are relatively prosperous up there just now.

There is a very small number of unemployed, wages are considerably above the normal, and things are going along merrily, but it is a fictitious war prosperity and where we are going to be after the war no one in the House can tell me. Our gallant Allies in the United States will build all the shipping of the world—at least, they will have the capacity to do it if they want to do it. I ask what is the future of the Clyde, and no member of the Government can give me an answer. The Clyde, like Newfoundland, will have to be dependent after the war on the same things that we are dependent on—the ability of the nations of the world to make intelligent understandings with one another about trade and the interchange of products. But Newfoundland starts from this vantage point, that a certain proportion of the things that are causing industrial activity over there now on account of war reasons are, if there is to be any intelligent development at all in the future, going to remain, because no one can rule out the place of Newfoundland in world aviation, whether it is war or civil aviation. No one can rule out of account the fact that Newfoundland represents the nearest point of the Americas than can be reached by sea from this country, and in any big future that Newfoundland has we may assume that she is going to be used intelligently by Canada, by this country and by the United States. It is so important in its position on the highways of the world that it will not be the orphan child that it was. It will have a whole lot of friends, and its future will not be the future of an island struggling under somewhat difficult climatic conditions to gain a miserable livelihood by engaging in the extractive industries and getting the poorest type of return for excessively hard labour.
Therefore, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must not tell me that this is a fictitious war prosperity. It is prosperity, and that is more than we can say about our position here. It is financial stability, and what happens after the war to Newfoundland is one of the problems that will concern the whole world after the war. If the right hon. Gentleman gets in the near future a request from a representative body of Newfoundland citizens, his duty, acting on behalf of the Government and of this House, is to make arrangements for the resumption of Parliamentary government in Newfoundland


forthwith. I have no doubt that that Parliamentary government will make a whole lot of mistakes. It will not be such a good Parliamentary government as we always have in this country. I have no doubt that bad statesmen will get into the Parliament and they will get out again, and that democracy will go floundering along as if does everywhere else. Nobody has ever pretended that it is a perfect instrument, but it is the instrument which this country believes in. It is the instrument which this country says it is fighting to preserve. This is one of the touchstones by which the honesty of our professions in this war is to be judged, because if we cannot trust these decent people of Newfoundland with the right to govern themselves we cannot trust anyone.

Sir Edward Grigg (Altrincham): I am sure all hon. Members realise that the subject which has been very wisely raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) goes to the foundation of our Imperial system. This Empire exists because it is a freedom-building Empire. It is only because it is a freedom-building Empire that once again in the last three years it has altered the history of the world. In this case of what is known as the oldest Colony, which afterwards became Dominion, whose history as a self-governing Colony goes back a very long way, certainly to Stuart times, this House must consider what it is doing when it refuses, if it is going to refuse, to consider the will of the people of Newfoundland. This House itself exists upon the will of the people of this country. That is the principle upon which it is based, and that principle is not to be changed, not to be even suspended, in any part of the Empire, for any period longer than is absolutely necessary, nor suspended at all without the gravest consideration and thought.
I do not want to go back very much upon the past. My hon. Friend quoted from the Debate when this Act was passed ten years ago. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Dominions Secretary still holds the convictions which he held then. I am certain that he has not changed and that in aim we appeal to the same man who made that speech. I do not doubt it for a moment. I still think that a mistake was made at that time. I would not agree with, my hon.
Friend that the conditions in Newfoundland are comparable with the conditions here in 1931. The trouble was much more serious than that. The difficulty of restoring any kind of sound economic system to Newfoundland was very much greater than it was here. Unfortunately, Newfoundland was suffering partly on our account. It is true that her affairs had been mismanaged, but the crisis was caused partly by the world crisis which was going on at that time and partly, let us remember, by the fact that this House and the Government decided to put sanctions on Italy and thus deprived Newfoundland of the best market it then had for fish. It was as a result of the direct action of this House that the worst part of the crisis occurred in Newfoundland.
A further difficulty was caused at the time by the attitude of the Dominion of Canada, with which we are not concerned here. Certainly the trouble in Newfoundland was not entirely the fault of the people, although they had not been very wisely led. For my part, I greatly regret that their Constitution was so completely suspended. It seemed to me at the time that the right course if we were going to take over in this country and make it the responsibility of this House to levy taxation in Newfoundland was that we ought to have gone on the ancient principle of no taxation without representation and given Newfoundland representation in this House. There is no reason why that should not have been done. I pressed it at the time, and I cannot understand why the Government rejected it. I greatly regret that the course pursued was pursued. However, that is the past.
I do not wish to embarrass my right hon. Friend in what is a difficult moment for him in many ways. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton that this House must consider most gravely its responsibility in this matter and its duty of seeing that the will of the people of Newfoundland is consulted. I do not know what their will is, I have not been able to explore the various expressions of opinion that have come from Newfoundland, but I consider that some trustworthy means should be taken of finding out what the people of Newfoundland really require at the present time. We owe them that, not only because of the principle on which this House itself is based, but because the service they


have rendered in this war, as in every other war in which we have been engaged, has been absolutely magnificent.
What are the courses open at the present time? The, alternatives should be put quite squarely to the people of that ancient Dominion. There is an alternative which has often been discussed in Newfoundland, that is, the choice of becoming a Province of the Dominion of Canada. That suggestion has a chequered history. When Newfoundland wanted to join Canada, Canada was against it. When Canada wanted Newfoundland, Newfoundland was against it. Where the thing stands at the present moment I do not know, "but that is one of the alternatives which ought to be considered. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that the position of Newfoundland in the North Atlantic is a very critical position and that the future of Newfoundland will be much safer as part of some greater Federation as a self-governing Colony than in complete isolation in the North Atlantic. That is not the only alternative. There is, of course, the possibility of the return of complete Dominion rights. I am doubtful about that, because nobody can foresee what strains will come on that Island at the end of the war. How can we tell what will happen at the end of the war? Its position may become very difficult again. I believe that, without touching its right for self-government, we ought to consider our responsibility of seeing that Newfoundland runs no economic risks which it can avoid in future.
I therefore suggest that the third alternative to be considered, apart from union with Canada or complete independence as a Dominion, is to come into the system of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. After all, Northern Ireland manages to be self-governing, and it also sends representatives to this Parliament. It is a precedent which is worth considering in the case of Newfoundland and worth putting to the people of the Dominion. In my belief, it is the best solution not only of that case, but of one or two other cases which we may have to raise on some other occasion in the House.

Mr. Maxton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that any one of these alternatives will have to be a matter of negotiation be-

tween the Dominion of Newfoundland and ourselves, and that what this House is bound to do is to restore self-government to Newfoundland?

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. Friend really need not have interrupted me to make that point, for it is the foundation of my speech. Whatever course is taken by Newfoundland, it must be, of course, taken with the will of the people of Newfoundland. All I am suggesting is that these alternatives should be put to them and that they should be consulted about them. They should be put in a way which will enable them to judge of the merits of the different points. Any suggestion on my hon. Friend's part or on anybody's part that I would try to force a course upon the people of Newfoundland which is not in accordance with their own will would really be a complete libel not only on myself personally, but on the whole position of the Empire which we are here in this House to uphold. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend make the speech he did. He is coining into the fold of the Imperialists. I welcome him. He is a better Imperialist than he knows. He shakes his head, but he certainly made a speech which in many ways delighted me. I do press this point upon my right hon. Friend. The time is at hand when the will of the people of Newfoundland should once again be ascertained. When that period comes I hope that more than one alternative will be put before them and that we shall freely offer them the alternative of coming into the system of this country on the same basis as Northern Ireland.

Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East): I rise to express the hope that when the alternatives are put before the people of Newfoundland the suggestion that they should have representatives in this House within the system of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will not be lost sight of. In these days, when transport is developing so rapidly, it may well be that a constituency in New Zealand—I mean Newfoundland—might be less difficult to communicate with than that of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). Whatever solution may be found for Newfoundland, the one which is intolerable is that a population of between 300,000 and 400,000 people, 100 per cent. British in origin, who have rendered the services they have over a very long period, should have no say whatever in the discussion


and determination of their own affairs. I am not able to share the optimistic view of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston in regard to the prospect of——

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member made an understandable mistake in referring to New Zealand when he obviously meant Newfoundland, but I cannot allow him to confuse Bridgeton with Shettleston.

Mr. White: I suppose it must have been my consternation when I found I had said New Zealand when I meant Newfoundland that made me commit the major error of confusing Shettleston with Bridge-ton. We cannot disguise from ourselves that the present economic situation in Newfoundland is very largely due to conditions which are temporary. There has been an expenditure of large sums of money by Americans and others. American dollars have been spent there for purposes which will come to an end, if they have not already ended. Also, one cannot disguise the fact that the thousands of tons of zinc concentrates at present being developed in this Island will be exhausted at the end of 10 years, and the present export of a million tons of quite good but not superlatively good iron ore is something upon which we cannot depend. The same considerations apply to the export of newsprint. But the point which I rose to make and which I will not labour is that the people of Newfoundland must be consulted in this matter, and that the one thing which is intolerable is that these gallant people should not have any say in their future.

Captain Peter MacDonald (Isle of Wight): I feel at very much the same disadvantage as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in discussing this very important problem, because the Deputy Prime Minister, who is Secretary of State for the Dominions, did not comply with the request I made to him the last time this question, was raised and provide the House with a White Paper telling us what is the situation in Newfoundland at the present time. I should have thought it would have been quite reasonable for him to do that without affecting security considerations, in view of the fact that he had just returned from a trip to Newfoundland. There were one of two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton which I think ought to be

corrected. First, it should not go out to the country that the Constitution of Newfoundland was filched from that Island entirely against its will. His second point was that, the prosperity of that country having been restored to it, the Constitution should also be restored to it immediately. The answer to the first point is that the Constitution of Newfoundland was not taken away by this House. The change was made as a result of a petition to His Majesty supported by a unanimous vote of both Legislatures in Newfoundland, and on the recommendation of a Royal Commission set up at the request of the Newfoundland Government. It was as a result of those things that this House granted the request of the Newfoundland Government and came to their assistance. In spite of what the Deputy Prime Minister said at that time, for which he will probably have to answer, the Government of that day very reluctantly felt obliged to come to the assistance of the Newfoundland Government, and the only way they thought they could do so was by appointing a Commission.
On the point of the prosperity to the Island, the first question is whether prosperity has been restored to it, and, if so, whether there is any prospect that: it will be of a permanent character, and after that, there is the question of what are the wishes of the Newfoundland people. As regards the hon. Gentleman's second point, the bargain which the Newfoundland people provided that when the Island was self-supporting responsible government on request from the people of Newfoundland should be restored. Out of that, three questions arise—Is the Island self-supporting now; is the prosperity permanent or of a temporary character; and what are the wishes of the Newfoundland people as regards the restoration of self-Government. In spite of the efforts of the excellent Commission which was set up to administer the affairs of Newfoundland, for years before the war this House had to provide a grant-in-aid up to £1,000,000 for the Newfoundland Government. Therefore, certainly up to 1940, it cannot be said that Newfoundland was self-supporting. Since then, it is true, a measure of prosperity has come to Newfoundland, such as everybody is glad to see; and though it is spoken of as being of a temporary character everyone would like to see it remain. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton


read communications Which he had received from financiers and friends, and made a great point about upholding the finances. He read a quotation from the Royal Bank of Canada. As has been said, he is coming into the Imperial fold.
As to the desires of the Newfoundland people on the question of the restoration of their Constitution, I am told that there is a great difference of opinion among different sections of the community. One section, I am told, would like to have the Constitution restored immediately, others would prefer to have it restored in stages, and yet others who have grave doubts of the wisdom of restoring it until some considerable time after the war and they know the real position of their finances. Until opinion is crystallised in some form, I do not think it is possible or advisable for His Majesty's Government to take any such drastic step as restoring the Constitution at the present time. There is another reason, and a very good reason, why it should not be done now, and that is that most of the male population are serving away from home on active service of one form or another. It would be hard to crystallise opinion while that important section of the community was absent. It would be unwise to set up a Constitution until those who are now serving abroad have had an opportunity of expressing their views. That is for the people of Newfoundland themselves to decide. When it is going to be decided or how it is to be decided I do not know, but I am convinced that if opinion in Newfoundland can be crystallised and it becomes evident to this House that the majority of the people there wish their Constitution restored to them, and are satisfied that the prosperity they are enjoying is of a permanent nature or sufficiently permanent for them to take the risk, there would be no hesitation on the part of any section in this House about restoring the Constitution.
Reference has been made to the contributions made by Newfoundland to our war effort, and I have taken some trouble to find out exactly what it is that these wonderful people have done and are doing for the war. Though I always knew that Newfoundland was as loyal a part of the British Empire as any, I was really amazed to find what the people there have been able to do. They contributed the

whole of the surplus of 11,000,000 dollars as a loan to the British Exchequer, free of interest. They contributed two artillery regiments, one of which distinguished itself in Tunisia. They have provided an air squadron, and in other air squadrons many Newfoundland men have distinguished themselves. They have pro-, vided a very large number of recruits for the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty were here, I am sure he would say they were doing magnificent work sometimes work which only people as hardy as the Newfoundland people could do. In addition to that—and it is a vital addition—they have provided air bases in their Island which have been used by America, Canada and ourselves. Further, they have produced, as "has already been mentioned, zinc, iron ore and wood pulp, and they have also, as we have been reminded, provided a forestry unit which is doing magnificent work in Scotland. Then there were wood pulp and fish. I do not know what the Ministry of Food would do to-day but for the contributions Newfoundland is making hi providing fish. We all agree that that is a very proud record for an Island with a population of 300,000 to 400,000 people. It proves that Newfoundland is one of the most loyal and devoted of our old Dominions and Colonies, and I am convinced that this House would wish not only their prosperity but self-government to be restored to them at the earliest possible moment and for all time.

Dr. Haden Guest (Islington, North): I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member who introduced this subject to-day. It is of very great importance, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the tributes he paid to the Island. I do not pronounce the name in the same way as he does, but I agree with his remarks about the gallant Newfoundlanders, whom I had an opportunity of meeting when, I visited their country upon a Parliamentary delegation a number of years ago. That is why I thought I ought to speak from my place to-day on this very important subject.
At the earliest practicable moment, full Dominion status should be restored to Newfoundland, if that is the status they desire. An hon. Member on the other side of the House has suggested an alternative, which it would obviously be


a matter for Newfoundland to choose. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken reminded us that it was by the will of the Newfoundlanders themselves that their country ceased to be a Dominion and was put under a Commission. I was there some considerable time before the economic blizzard began. There was no economic blizzard in 1926. I forget the precise time, but it was at any rate before the blizzard had begun. We were told in the numerous official contacts we had with legislative authorities, representative Ministers, representatives of business organisations and everyone we met in Newfoundland, that they would prefer not to have the status of a Dominion, for reasons which they thought excellent and which I do not wish to enter into now. The reasons had to do with the financial difficulties of the country, which were of a very grave character.
While paying this tribute to the Newfoundlanders, I would hope that they are being prevented from being so excessively brave as they were during the last war. I happened at one time to be attached to the 29th Division when it made an attack upon Beaumont Hamel, and we had a Newfoundland regiment. I was doing a special job, and two Newfoundland officers were detailed to me for the purpose of this job, very much against their will. I regret to state that my job kept them about 500.yards behind the front line, and only those two officers were not killed or wounded in the attack. The Newfoundlanders were amazingly brave. You simply could not hold them back. They are no doubt wonderful people at sea, on the land and, this time, v no doubt, in the air. They are a great people, and at the earliest practicable moment they should have the form of Dominion status that they wish to have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has not convinced me, and I do not know whether he has convinced the House, that he is in touch with representative opinion in Newfoundland. Let me tell him why. The political divisions of Newfoundland are extraordinary. They are not as between Liberal, Labour and Conservative, but as between those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the Free Church community. I should have been more impressed if my

hon. Friend had produced evidence from the leaders of the religious communities instead of from the chamber of commerce with which he has been in such close touch. They are the people more qualified to speak for Newfoundland than those whom he mentioned.

Mr. Maxton: They were the people in charge of political affairs during the difficult times.

Dr. Guest: Who were in charge of political affairs?

Mr. Maxton: The persons whom the hon. Gentleman indicated I should have consulted.

Dr. Guest: I prefer them because they did then, and do now, represent political opinion in Newfoundland. I think I am right in saying that the Commissioners themselves have to be appointed according to their religious denomination, in order to be acceptable to the people of Newfoundland—which I think is fairly striking proof of what I have just been saying.
I had another reason for rising, and it was to refer to what must strike anyone who goes to Newfoundland. I understand that the situation has not changed very much 6ince I was there. I refer to the lopsided development, or lack of development, of that country. The most recent information I have is from a conversation with the representative of Newfoundland in this country. I asked him a simple question, "Do you still import all your potatoes?" He said "Yes." They have so little agriculture that they do not even grow potatoes. They do not grow even the most necessary things. They export fish, the products of their mines and their lumber. They are living on an export economy, and they are not producing the things necessary for use inside their own country. There is only one thing to ask the Minister, and it is a very serious question. I do not know whether I was mistaken when he made the announcement some time ago of the sending of that informal Mission to Newfoundland. I think he suggested that there was not to be a report. It seems that this is exactly the time when there ought to be a report upon conditions in Newfoundland. It is just the time when helpful suggestions may be made to that country as to how their resources might


be better balanced and better developed than they are at the present time.
There is no reason so far as their climate is concerned why very considerable agricultural activities should not be carried on, and there is every reason why that should be done. It would be an advantage from every point of view. When I was there I remember going into the parts of St. John's and other towns where the fisherfolk lived. They were living in very poor circumstances indeed and on a very low standard of life. I think it would be very much improved if Newfoundland could develop some variety of agriculture. Another of the great exports of Newfoundland which I did not mention is its manhood. I was told that there were more Newfoundlanders in the United States than there were in Newfoundland, and I was told half jokingly the other day that there were more Newfoundlanders in this country than in Newfoundland. I do not think that is accurate, but there is certainly a very large number of Newfoundlanders in our Services now, and I am sure that we all welcome their help.
If the Mission, when it goes out there, were to make a report upon the possibilities of economic development in Newfoundland with a view to the raising and improving of agriculture there, and in order to produce a very much larger proportion of the food they require, I think it would add substantially to the development of Newfoundland life and make the basis of their economic development much sounder and more secure than at the present time. It is very unfortunate for a country to be always exporting things and having to buy with money everything it requires. That is not a satisfactory form of economy. In view of the immense importance of Newfoundland in the future in regard to civil aviation, which I do not think can be exaggerated, and also with regard to shipping and naval security, which it is also very difficult to exaggerate, it is most important that this House should have the opportunity of benefiting from the observations that members of the Mission may be able to make and of those observations being conveyed to them in the form of a report designed to help the economic welfare of Newfoundland, and with a view also to the restoration of full self-government to those people at the earliest possible moment.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Attlee): I am very glad that in this Debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) have paid tribute to the great work that the people of Newfoundland are doing in the war. The country has a small population, but they have made a great contribution in men to the Fighting Services, and in their work in logging, on bases and everything else. I think we need to remember that. We have over here a large number of people from Newfoundland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) began by referring to a Debate or series of Debates in this House in which there was a long Sitting and during which both he and I very much opposed this form of Government for Newfoundland. My hon. Friend seemed to think that I am a bit ashamed of having done that. I am not, in the least. I adhere to what I said at that time. I dislike what was done at that time, I dislike intensely that we should have an absence of self-government in that community.
Therefore, as soon as I became Dominions Secretary I began to look into this question to see what was the position of Newfoundland now, because they came directly under my responsibility. I naturally thought first of all, Has there been a request for restoration of self-government? My hon. Friend has momentarily forgotten that the abolition of self-government was done by request from the people of Newfoundland.

Mr. Maxton: I did not forget that fact at all, but I have some knowledge of the pressure that was put on Newfoundland to make that request.

Mr. Attlee: That was done, but I do not know about the pressure. That was the fact, and of course it is for the people of Newfoundland to decide when they want self-government restored. I found that there had not been that request of recent years. Indeed, the hon. Member himself had not raised Newfoundland since a supplementary question, I think in 1939. Obviously the matter had not been agitated very much. However, I thought that the right thing to do was to try to find out what the people of Newfoundland were thinking of this matter, and so I


tried to make personal contacts. The first thing I did was to go to Scotland. I am sure hon. Members have contacted there a very large number of people from Newfoundland who are working in the logging, and there is also a regiment which was for some time stationed within a few miles of the home of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton. I talked with and saw those people who had come from Newfoundland to work and fight for us. The next thing I thought I would do was to go over to the Island myself. Accordingly, I paid a visit there. I stayed for some time in the country. I also went to some of the out posts. Travel is not very easy there, and one is very often hung up, but I did get around a good deal, and I saw a pretty fair number of people in Newfoundland. I met most of the leading traders who belong to the Board of Trade, as well as lawyers, clergy, trade union leaders, fishermen and people of all kinds.
The first thing one realised there was that there was no unanimity of opinion on this question. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have read from the resolution of the Board of Trade that they expressly stated that they realised that there is a great division of opinion, (1) as to whether any change should be made now; (2) as to what kind of change that should be. My hon. Friend was wrong in thinking that this resolution was supported by the trade unions, because the Board of Trade asked for a Royal Commission. The trade union group did not want a Royal Commission; they wanted immediate self-government, which is a different thing. I think the hon. Member was thinking of the West Coast Association, who supported the idea of an inquiry.
I found among all sections of society that there were wide divergencies. On the whole, broadly speaking, the view was that it was inexpedient to, have changes during the war. There were very wide divergences of opinion as to what form of Constitution should be set up, though there was a great preponderance of opinion that there should be a form of constitutional government, but I found very few who wanted to go back just to what they had before. I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that there was perhaps some exaggeration about the way in which things were carried on at that time. I think there was

a lack of balance, but there is no doubt that they do not look back with any great satisfaction to the institutions they had then. I talked with people of all kinds, and they all said, "You have to consider how it is to be done." Then there was the point of the economic background. The hon. Member said I was sure to bring that up. I am very concerned, because there is an Island of decent, straightforward, fine people who are living at a very low standard of life. One has to look into the resources of that Island to see what kind of standard it can support and what kind of organisation will give it that standard. If you are to have a very expensive form of government, you may have too big overheads for the very small population of a very large Island. All these things are bound together. On that visit I and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Arthur Jenkins) travelled round the Island and talked to people. Certainly one thing stuck out a mile, that conditions are not just the same as they were 10 years ago. There have been 10 years in which the people have had no self-government. It is one of the troubles, in my opinion, that in that Island, while there is a sort of municipality in St. John's and there are new very weak local councils in two small places, there is no local government in that Island at all. Therefore, they have not had the practice of self-government. I do not think it is fair, when people have been deprived of the practice of self-government, to suggest that all at once the whole position should be thrown back. I think there must be time to think it out and discuss things. The people of Newfoundland have thrown themselves into this war. They have been doing great work on the bases. I do not think they have had the time to think out very closely the kind of questions involved in the future Constitution of the Island and the future economic life of the Island.
It was suggested by the Board of Trade that there should be an immediate Royal Commission. That was a change of view from what I had experienced out there. I am not sure that it was a very permanent view. It followed on a meeting of protest against certain Excess Profits Taxes which had been put on, and which had caused a certain amount of feeling. I am not sure there was anything there on which one could act straight away.
I think we have to consider the point that there is not unanimity of view that there ought to be a Royal Commission now, first, because people are busy on the war; and second, the reason was published in one of the local papers in a very cogent letter from a man serving over here. He said, "What about us people serving over here?" which is something like 25 per cent. of the men between 20 and 40. They are vitally concerned in the future. Is it fair, the writer of that letter asked, that a decision on the future of the country should be made when they were out of the country, when they were fighting for it and could take no part?

Mr. Driberg (Maldon): The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Canadian Forces were able to vote last year by absent voters' ballot.

Mr. Attlee: I am very much obliged for that information, but to vote in an election under an established Constitution is a very different matter from having to deal with a situation when one is right away from one's country, where there has not been self-government, and when most of those who are away have never had a chance of voting because they are young. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion is really helpful. I came to the conclusion that what I wanted to see in Newfoundland at the present time was thinking on these problems and understanding of these problems. I thought it would be helpful to send out Parliamentarians to make contact, talk to people, and bring back to this House a very valuable addition to the knowledge of Members of this House on Newfoundland, because one can very easily get out of date. I am much obliged to people who have been to Newfoundland, but they would be the first to admit that what they saw 10 years ago needs bringing up to date.
I have also in mind the view that it was a mistake that we had not people of Parliamentary experience from here on the Commission of Government. I would say that it has been a mistake that throughout this period we have not had adequate numbers of people educating themselves in democracy, both by precept and by practice. For that reason I am sorry there has not been more development of local self-government,

though that seems to evoke a good deal of local opposition. While I think the hon. Member is perfectly right that if there is a demand it should be met, and the conditions fulfilled, the hon. Member realises perfectly well that this prosperity is temporary, it is a war prosperity, and a lot of hard thought and hard work will have to be done by the people of Newfoundland with all the help we and anyone else can give them if we are to set up a satisfactory standard of life for those people in the post-war period. I think a very large number of Newfoundland people would agree that what is needed now is full discussion and consideration.
Let me say that I was obliged to the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) for his suggestion. That is one of many other methods, because it is not necessarily the right thing to take the system we have here in Westminster and put it down in St. John's, Newfoundland. The principles have to be adapted to the particular conditions there. That is why I am obliged to my three hon. Friends who are going out. I know they will receive a very warm welcome and will bring back to this House valuable additional knowledge. I do not think it would be advisable for them to have to give a written report. In this matter, where we are dealing with our own kinsmen, it is these personal contacts which are so valuable. Incidentally, I believe that the personal contacts that the people of Newfoundland serving, over here have made—and I know that they have received much hospitality from the people of Scotland—will be enormously valuable to them in the future. The hon. Member thought this was a method of dodging the demands. Let me say that the demands to which the hon. Member has referred came along after my decision to invite hon. Members to visit Newfoundland. It takes a long time to fix these things. The question of sending out Members came to me and was taken up by me long before there was any question of these resolutions being passed. It anticipated them.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman and I had a private conversation which I believe was completely candid on his part, and which I appreciated very much, but he never mentioned this.

Mr. Attlee: I think the hon. Member has forgotten. I remember that conversation very well. I think that if he will think


back, he will recollect that I did tell him that this was a proposal I was making. I rather thought he approved at the time; but I had taken up this matter long before there was any question of a demand for a Royal Commission. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member did not wake up on this question until I had taken action and gone out there myself.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I accompanied him on part of his journey on that occasion.

Mr. Attlee: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that from the time I took office I have been concerned with this matter, because I want to see restoration of self-government in Newfoundland, but it must not be imagined that it is a question of our giving, withholding or imposing. It is essentially a question for the people of Newfoundland themselves—all the people of Newfoundland—and may I say that that includes the younger people who are the people who are fighting and working in this country now.

FOOD SUPPLIES

Mr. Douglas (Battersea, North): I wish
to switch the discussion now over to the question of food supply and distribution. I think no apology is needed for doing that, because it is a matter of universal concern. It matters not where one goes, food is the subject of discussion and conversation, and that fact in itself indicates what is the effect of the successive restrictions which have been imposed upon the supply and distribution of food upon the minds of our people. I want to make it quite clear to start with that I am not——

Mr. Charleton (Leeds, South): May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there is not a Member on the other side of the House, including any Government Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): That is not a matter for me.

Mr. McGovern: took a seat on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Douglas: I do not know whether the new recruit to the Government will be of help to the Parliamentary Secretary. I was about to point out that I do not raise any complaint with regard to the administration of rationing so far as it concerns staple foods of standardised quality, such

as sugar, butter, margarine, and commodities of that kind where distribution can be made almost of a mechanical character. My complaint concerns favouritism and discrimination in regard to two groups of foodstuffs: first, those rationed foods which are not of a uniform quality, and in which therefore there is the opportunity of discrimination, and, secondly, those foodstuffs which are not rationed at all. An example of the first group which springs to mind is meat. There is a great deal of difference between one cut of meat and another. There is no discrimination as regards the 1s. 2d. per person, but the way in which it is supplied can cause a great deal of discontent. The examples that I am going to give are based upon observation and inquiry in my own constituency, which, I think, represents a fair cross-section of the population of this country. These are cases which come to my knowledge quite frequently, not just occasionally. I get complaints that when, for instance, pork is plentiful, some customers get pork week after week, while others are supplied with some of the kinds which are not so abundant. I am also told occasionally that steps are taken to secure this discrimination by passing tips to people employed in the shops—that between two ration books a packet of cigarettes is introduced, and other things of that kind.
Let me pass to some examples of discrimination in regard to unrationed goods. The question of fish has been raised very pointedly from time to time in this House, in questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. My constituents complain that they never see any of the better kinds of fish, such as plaice, halibut and salmon—and even working people like to have a change occasionally, even if it entails considerable expenditure. Fruit is another example. There is a scarcity of gooseberries, which ought to be coming on the market at present. The Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday, in reply to a Question that I put, that there were few on sale because picking had been deferred, and that
it is not expected that any very large quantity will be available for distribution as fresh fruit since a substantial proportion of what in any case is a small crop will be reserved for jam-making."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1943; col. 720, Vol. 390.]
I had exactly the same kind of reply when I raised this question a year ago. Many


people think that, in the words of "Alice in Wonderland," it is a case of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): It is always jam, never soft fruit.

Mr. Douglas: Jam is not a substitute for fresh fruit, and one of the most serious deficiencies in our diet at present is that of all kinds of fresh fruit. In normal times it is possible to get fruit in some form or another at every season of the year, because it is imported from abroad. Therefore, the deprivation is felt all the more acutely. May I refer to the distribution of oranges, in which priority is supposed to be given for young children? I know of a woman with a young child, who went for oranges to a greengrocer whom she had patronised for years—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that, because he has defended the practice of under-the-counter sales on the ground that they are a means by shopkeepers of securing that their regular customers are supplied. Here is the case of a regular customer who goes to a greengrocer to get oranges, and gets none. A few days afterwards her child is taken ill; she tells a neighbour, who has no children, and the neighbour gives her some oranges. The neighbour has got those oranges at the shop where the mother was refused. Here i. another case. One woman, who has three children, is given one pound of oranges; another woman, who has one child, is given three pounds of oranges. There can be no justification for that discrimination. Remember that these unfortunate people are paying about 6d. for each orange in order to get them for their children.
Frequently I hear of cases of people going to shops to buy goods, and the goods are there, but they are told, "You cannot have them; they have been ordered by telephone." I had a case recently of a woman who went to a shop to buy bacon, a rationed commodity. There was a queue for it. After waiting 40 minutes, she at last got to the head of the queue, and found that there was some bacon. She asked for her ration, and was told, "You cannot have any; this has been ordered by telephone." That sort of thing is causing enormous irritation. Other commodities in short supply are the subject of

similar complaints. A few days ago a woman in my constituency went to a shop at which she has dealt for years, and at which she is a registered customer for meat. She went to a counter and asked for Bird's custard powder, and she was told deliberately, "We have not got any." She then went to another counter to get her meat, and, while waiting there, she saw another customer served with the very article that she had been told she could not be supplied with. When, after seeing this, she went over and asked for a tin, it was flung at her. These instances can be multiplied enormously.
When the Minister took certain kinds of tinned fruit off the points system recently, one lady, who had been buying tinned fruit for a long time past on points from a certain shop, went there and asked for some of this fruit which had been taken off points. She was refused, on the ground that she was not a registered customer. She was a registered customer at another shop which did not deal in that commodity, so that she could not get any at all. I think I am correct in saying that in many cases the device of refusing to serve customers with un-rationed articles is designed to compel the customer to register there for rationed goods, in the hope that he will be able to get unrationed goods there too. It is clear that there are a great many articles which are sold by shops of a specialised character which do not deal in registered goods at all. Therefore, if the shops which deal in registered goods try to force customers in this way it is extremely unfair on the others.
I would point out that the strain of all this upon the housewife is considerable. There are queues, not only for unrationed goods, but frequently for rationed goods as well, and people have to wait often for 20 minutes before they can be served. Part of the trouble, of course, is that the staffs of the shops are depleted and are not able to deal with the work as expeditiously as they did in normal times, while every transaction takes longer because of the necessity of producing the ration books, and, in the case of rationed goods, the quantity that can be obtained at one time is generally limited to one week's supply, so that people who normally would buy two or three weeks' supply at one time have to come more frequently. That creates in-


creased difficulty in shopping, and adds to the time required by women to get the commodities they need. But, although it can be explained to some extent in that way, do not let us forget that there is in the aggregate an enormous waste of time and energy, which is taken out of the life of the housewife. While that is happening, the Minister is advising women to learn new and elaborate means of cooking things, which they have far less time than they normally have to put into operation.
The cumulative effect of the restriction upon the supply of goods during nearly four years now is beginning to make itself felt. There is, in spite of the fact that the death-rate has gone down, an increase in invalidity—an increase not so much in acute diseases as in sub-acute diseases. That is borne out by the experience of friendly societies, sick benefit societies and similar bodies, who all report that they have to deal with a much larger volume of sickness. Here again—and I ought' to be quite fair about this—there are several causes at work besides food. There are the black-out, the lack of fresh air, the long hours, and in many cases perhaps long distances to travel and similar things which all throw more strain upon the human organism. But all these factors are also responsible for the increase in invalidity. It shows all the more clearly that very serious consideration ought to be given to see whether it is not possible to make some improvement in the supply and variety of food in order to help to counteract the effects upon health of not only the lack of food but of the other disabilities to which people are being subjected.
When Mrs. Roosevelt was here some time ago she described the diet as being adequate but dull. She was here only for a very few days. If she had lived upon this diet as long as we have had to do, especially those who have not the benefit of being able to go to canteens in order to supplement their food supply, and the housewives particularly, who have to bear the brunt of this in the end, I think she would have gone further in her description of our diet. It is not only dull; it is extremely monotonous, and the monotony interferes with appetite, and lack of appetite interferes with digestion, and so the food does not do us as much good as it ought to do. The Prime Minis-

ter and the War Cabinet are no doubt very greatly concerned about the activities upon the war fronts, but the home front also deserves some consideration. It is the basis in the end of everything that we are doing. There is no lack of resolution in our people. They are fully determined to see this matter through to the end no matter what it may cost. They are encouraged by the trend of events as exemplified in North Africa and elsewhere, but it is still true that the shortage of food throws a heavy burden upon many people, and if some relaxation could be obtained in the stringency, it would not only give encouragement but it might give us more strength and energy with which to deal with the jobs that we have all got to do.
The Prime Minister in his speech a few days ago said that the month of May had been one of the best for imports carried safely to these Islands since the end of 1941, and the Minister of Food has upon several occasions stated that his policy was not only to keep a reserve of foodstuffs but actually to increase it and build it up. I know that there are many factors which have to be taken into account, and some of these the general public, and even those of us who do not occupy positions of responsibility here, have not the data to assess, but I do with all seriousness suggest that it deserves consideration as to whether more shipping or some of the reserves of foodstuffs can now be made available to try and mitigate the food situation and give a little larger supply or more variety and so reduce the strain to which so many of our people are subjected.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth): I want to raise a question with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food which has not exactly a direct bearing on the subject which my hon. Friend has stressed of under-the-counter sales. What we grumble about in the North of England is not so much under-the-counter sales in regard to soft fruits and tomatoes as whether there are to be any under-the-counter sales at all. Therefore we are taking time by the forelock by raising this matter to-day, so that we may not have a repetition of what happened last season. There is great anxiety in the North. The food traders, consisting of suppliers with 800,000 people in their area, 75 wholesalers and 4,350 retailers have been meeting at Newcastle, and


information has been passed on to Members of Parliament from the North to raise this question with the Ministry of Food. The position as I understand it is that they are now largely dependent upon the Ministry for supplies under an Order under which associations have been formed covering the main growing areas. It is to these associations that the Ministry directs that certain quantities should be supplied to areas where the need or the deficiency exists. These quantities should have regard to the nature or geographical situation of the area. Before the war we undoubtedly imported enormous quantities of soft fruits, tomatoes and that sort of thing from the Continent. As these supplies are all cut off now, we are dependent upon our home-grown supplies to the extent, it is estimated, of something like 95 per cent. I am not deprecating in any way the splendid work which the Ministry of Food has done. It has done a tremendous job of work, there is no question about that, but we heard on the wireless and saw in the Press last year that we were to get six or seven pounds of tomatoes per head.

Mr. Mabane: That was the notional figure, which was certainly given over the wireless before the season began, and it was not realised.

Mr. Taylor: These notional figures lead people up the garden. It probably would be just as well for the Ministry of Food not to be too optimistic. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be of that sort of make-up, rather temperamental, and when he says things he becomes very optimistic. You will not get tomatoes on a vine by being optimistic. The giving of notional figures of six or seven lbs. on the wireless caused a considerable amount of disappointment when six or seven lbs. of tomatoes did not materialise. The general idea is that people in the South of England got more than six or seven lbs.

Mr. Mabane: Mr. Mabane indicated dissent.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is the general opinion. The information from the Ministry is that the average was 4¼ lbs. per head for last year. If there was an average of 4¼ lbs., then somebody had been getting six lbs. If we could grow tomatoes out of doors to the extent that

they can be grown in the Souths of England, I would grow them in my back garden. It is a plant that is easily grown and is prolific, and my hon. Friend beside me can grow any quantity, but we cannot grow them in the North of England like that. Traders in the North of England are anxious that we should be given a fair crack of the whip, but we do not think that we got it last year. The average last year in the North was 3·35 lbs. Therefore, if the average was worked out for the whole of the country, it is evident that a fairly large number of people got more than that per head.
We are seriously handicapped for transport, and unless we can be helped with transport on this occasion we shall be as badly off as we were last year. In the Newcastle district we used to get a very large quantity of our tomatoes from Norfolk; we took practically half the Norfolk crop of tomatoes before the war. Since the restriction on transport these deliveries have been stopped. I would like attention to be given to this matter, because it is a bit of a puzzle. Owing to the difficulties of transport, and to the fact that we are trying to make everything easier, we are not to have any more tomatoes from the Norfolk district, but we are to receive them from South of London, that is another couple of hundred miles away. Our retailers would like the supply of tomatoes to come along in a steady flow. We do not want to wait until the gluts come along, so that our average per head is raised. Wholesalers and retailers in the North of England would like to have them in a steady flow; 1,800,000 people in the North want the Ministry to understand that we are entirely dependent upon them for our supplies and that if our supplies are not forthcoming we shall raise this question again. I hope that included in the Parliamentary Secretary's crackling loquacity will be the statement that our people in the North will get an equitable share of the soft fruits and tomatoes that are produced this year.

Mr. Leslie: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) has said about the North of England getting a fair share of the distribution of tomatoes. They should be treated no worse than the South in this respect and I hope the Minister will see that that is done. I listened with considerable interest to the speech


of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), who stated that there were no complaints about rationing because everybody was treated alike. With that I think we all can agree——

Mr. Douglas: I said with regard to rationed goods which were of uniform quality; I did not include all rationed goods.

Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend's chief complaint was about favouritism and discrimination in unrationed foodstuffs. This brings me to the charge of under-the-counter practice, about which I want to take up the case of the trader. Under-the-counter trading has become a sort of byword, a gibe for B.B.C. clowns, but there is something to be said in its favour. Complaints have been made of absenteeism among women workers in factories. At a recent conference of the Engineering Union, women spoke bitterly about women war workers coming off worst in shopping. They said that women with leisure rummaged through the shops during the least busy hours, picking out the supplementary articles, and that when working women came along it was all scramble, scarcity and the bare rations. Here, surely, is a case for the fair-share idea in under-the-counter trade, so that regular customers may not be forgotten. After all, the trader has to bear in mind his regular customers; he has to think of the future, when the war is over. It would be easy, indeed, for assistants to sell everything on the basis of "First come, first served." It would relieve them of a considerable amount of worry and trouble in operating the fair-share scheme, and at the same time it would mean that women in war factories, offices and the like would get a fair share. Women with the necessary time to tour the shops every day get all the pickings, but when women take time off from factories to go shopping, their absenteeism means a decline in production and the war effort suffers.
Traders in different parts of the country have sought to overcome complaints about women in factories being unable to shop by extending their opening time for an hour. What has been the experience? In one town that I know the number of customers ranged from only one to five, so it was not a paying proposition. What traders are endeavouring to do by means

of the fair-share scheme is to see that every customer has a fair share of the goods that are unrationed. My contention is that these cheap gibes about under-the-counter business make for bad feeling between customers and shop assistants. Women in factories hear them and wonder whether they are getting their fair share. Shop assistants are feeling keenly the accusations levelled against them that they are giving preferential treatment and being unfair. They have enough trouble with rationing, points and shortage of staffs, and a little sympathy and consideration would not come amiss. I hope this House will be generous in that respect.

Mr. Sexton (Barnard Castle): I would like to emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor). Like him I come from the North. In war-time we need food not only for the guns, but for the makers of those guns. There would be no guns at all if there were no workers to manufacture them, and there would be an insufficient supply or weapons of poor quality if there was not an adequate and good supply of food. It is true that some staple foods have been rationed, such as meat. But man cannot live by meat alone. We are told that variety is the spice of life, but variety is also the spice of food. Although I am not a dietetics expert, I understand that fresh fruit and vegetables are essential to a fully healthy life. During the last three or four years we have been told about the good qualities of fresh vegetables, especially carrots, but even a donkey gets tired of carrots, and the workers themselves are getting tired and want something more palatable. The climate in the North of England is not very kind to fruit growers. The districts around where my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth lives were called various names—"distressed areas," "special areas" and sometimes, even, "areas of the forgotten men." Now they are becoming areas of forbidden fruit. Some of the absenteeism about which we have heard so much is due to the lowering of the vitality of the workers, owing to a shortage of fruit. Especially do I claim recognition for the men who work underground, who are denied much of the sunlight that ordinary workers above ground get. They are down in the bowels of the earth, seven, eight or nine hours a day,


and I believe that fresh fruit would to a great extent counter the ill-effects of this shortage of sunlight. Before the war we relied almost entirely, in the North of England, on imported fruit. Now imports have been cut, and we have to rely on home-produced fruit, but there is less of it and, therefore, the problem of distribution——

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Railway Freight Rebates Act, 1943.
2.Catering Wages Act, 1943.

FOOD SUPPLIES

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Sexton: I was referring to the distribution of the supplies of fruit that are in the country at present. I am not going to talk about a long-term policy except to suggest that more home fruit could be provided by the use of railway embankments and other waste land. The Forestry Commissioners have issued a Report, which I have not seen yet, so I do not know whether they recommend the planting of fruit trees. The essential problem is that the industrial areas of the North, districts with unkind climates, shall have a fair share of the fruit that is required. The fruit that is coming from North Africa at present could, I think, be increased. Instead of importing wines, I think the country would be better served if more fresh fruit were brought in.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster): My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) has raised a most acute problem which is well known to the Minister, and I am certain that the chief officers of his Department have been doing their best to examine it and to apply remedies in particular areas where evidence has been submitted to them, but when my hon. Friend raises the question

of geographical areas and asks whether unrationed foods are related on any particular basis at all, he is asking the Minister for evidence which only wholesale greengrocers and distributors of food can possibly provide. Unless this issue is seriously tackled in the next month or two, I feel that even Lord Woolton is likely to lose some measure of his high reputation for equity and fair distribution. There is a reason for it, and a definite and known origin. It is simply that, in regard to the tasty bits, commodities such as meat by-products and similar provisions, which should be normally available on an equitable basis throughout the country, there is no real Order laid down by the Ministry which equates the right of supply to the mouths that have to be fed. I want the Minister to look into these various Orders. I believe they go back to what the grocer himself was able to obtain in 1939. Owing to industrial development and migration of various kinds, there have been intense changes which have affected the numbers of mouths to be fed by particular grocers. For instance, a grocer may have had an increase of, say, 50 per cent. in the number of registered customers over the last two years, but it does not necessarily follow that he is receiving from the wholesaler 50 per cent. more of the tasty bits which are really needed to augment the rationed commodities to which the consumer is entitled under the rationing scheme. So I appeal to the Minister to re-examine fundamental causes and see whether he cannot tell the wholesalers that some new scheme of distribution is necessary in the relationship between the wholesaler and the retailer and the number of mouths to be fed in any given area.
I think we ought to be quite frank about the inadequate supply of tomatoes in certain areas. A new language is springing up in the market already. The trouble does not begin with the retailer. He is a most unfortunate person. When he goes to market he finds that commodities are being exchanged one for the other. Tomatoes are bought by peas. It is a kind of dual currency. The greengrocer goes to the wholesaler and asks if he can have six boxes of tomatoes. There may be 300 boxes, and he may have plenty of money and may be an old registered customer of the wholesaler, and he may have plenty of consumers who want a supply, but the wholesaler answers him right away,


"I am selling peas." He does not make it a condition of sale. He simply says, "I am selling peas." The poor retailer is only told that if he is disposed to purchase four or five sacks of peas which he cannot possibly sell at 1s. a lb., and which incidentally are not controlled, at a fantastic price he may get an allocation of a few boxes of tomatoes. I seriously ask the Minister to see that this kind of foul practice is exterminated this season. It obtained last year and the year before. In a few weeks he will find a strawberry ramp taking place. The poor retailer will go to the wholesale market and, when he asks for a few baskets of strawberries at the controlled price, the wholesaler will say, "I am sorry, but I am selling cherries," and 12 baskets of cherries may give him a title to six baskets of strawberries. Does the House wonder that the retailer introduces under-the-counter practices and favouritism of a distasteful kind, which is the cause of complaints throughout the land? There is no doubt that it can be exterminated if the Minister will act properly.
With regard to oranges, I think the Minister is well aware of what is happening. We do not complain that there is inequitable distribution in the main. Most retailers apply themselves to carrying out the Minister's wishes. There are some retailers who do not sell any of their oranges to children under five. I would say of one retailer I know that the children he supplies have beards or have been shaving for years. When mothers go to buy oranges from this retailer he does not apply under-the-counter methods; he says that they are for registered customers, but that simply means a few of his favourite friends, none of whom have children. I admire the next door greengrocer by contrast. He acts on the principle which the Minister would approve and he sees that the oranges are put on show. Any mother who goes along with a ration card for a child under five to that greengrocer and many hundreds like him can get them on the principle of first come first served. I appeal to the Minister to make further representations to his enforcement officers carefully to watch these practices because there are disquieting features and they are causing grievances. I believe that a word in season or a note sent out by the Minister on some of the points raised in the Debate would remove the risk of a lot of trouble coming to him in the next few

months because of maldistribution of the tasty bits which of necessity our people must still scramble for.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) has raised a topic that is undoubtedly of general interest. I am sure, however, that neither he nor other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken would wish, nor has it been their intention, to create an unnecessary atmosphere of suspicion. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate said that he had many cases of which he had specific knowledge. May I ask him whether he will give me precise details? He has referred particularly to one case of the sale of oranges which, if the facts are as he stated them, was certainly a breach of the instructions of the Department. He said he knew the shop. I ask him to give me the particulars. I was a little concerned lest his speech should be interpreted as an attack upon the traders in food. I feel certain that no hon. Member would be prepared to say that in his constituency on the whole the traders are not doing their best to carry out a difficult job with fairness and efficiency. I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate would be inclined to make that accusation against the traders in his own constituency. I was glad to hear the words of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) who has an expert knowledge of the distributive trades, putting in a plea for those trades on the very real ground that they are severely handicapped not alone by shortages of staff but by reason of those very controls that have been imposed upon them. Therefore, I hope that we shall agree that if certain food trades are employing improper or unfair practices they are a very small proportion of the total. It would be a bad thing if it went out as the result of this Debate that the House had any doubts as to the loyalty or patriotism of the many people engaged in the food trades.
I should like to deal as far as I can with some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for North Battersea and an hon. Gentleman representing a constituency in the North-East raised the question of soft fruit. Let us face fairly this matter of soft fruit. Let us recognise that the supply is extremely small and that the Department, in its endeavour to


secure that that fruit is distributed as fairly as possible, has decided that the most fair way in which it can secure distribution is by converting it into jam.

Mrs. Hardie (Glasgow, Springburn): When you are doing that with the fruit, will you set a standard for the jam and see that some fruit is put into it?

Mr. Mabane: I hope the hon. Lady does not mean to suggest that the fruit is not in the jam?

Mrs. Hardie: I do.

Mr. Mabane: I am glad that the hon. Lady said that definitely, because I want to say that the fruit is in the jam. We import a great deal of fruit pulp. We cannot make the supply we need for the ration if we use fruit alone as grown in this country. Therefore we import a great deal of fruit pulp. The hon. Lady knows far better than I do that if you make jam of fruit pulp plus fruit, you do not get as good a looking jam or, indeed, as good a tasting jam as if you make it of fruit alone.

Mrs. Hardie: The point is that it is watered down, and gelatine is put in to stiffen it. I know, because I am a practical person. If you send the fruit to a jam manufacturer they spoil it in this way. I would not say that there is no fruit in jam, for that would be an exaggeration.

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Lady has rather diverted me from my point. We must face the fact that there is very little soft fruit and that what there is we want mainly for jam. Those who complain that soft fruit is not to be found in the shops should persuade people that it is only to be expected that there will be virtually none in the shops. I have figures which enable me to give the House the total amount of the more important soft fruits available per head of the population. These figures are the total crop before pre-emption. The figures are: Strawberries, half a pound per head per annum; gooseberries, half a pound per head; raspberries, half a pound per head; blackcurrants, half a pound per head; red and white currants, 2 ozs. per head; loganberries and blackberries 2 ozs. per head. We want to get as much of that fruit into jam as we can so that it is no use complaining of the shortage of fresh fruit in the shops.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is there any prohibition on caterers that they shall get no more than their fair share, or will favouritism be permitted?

Mr. Mabane: I am trying to make the point that there is virtually no soft fruit available for the general body of the population. The catering trade is a different question which I will refer to later.
Tomatoes was another important matter raised. Earlier in the day I met a deputation of Members of Parliament on this subject. A curious thing happened. I was asked yesterday afternoon to meet certain Members and the arrangement was made to meet at noon to-day. Later some other Members asked me to meet them and I told them that the meet-ting was at noon. When I got to the Department I found that the two sets of Members were representing two different points of view—one that of the growers who were complaining of the restrictions placed on their right to sell and the other that of the North-East part of the country complaining that the limitations upon the growers were so slight that the North-East area got too few tomatoes. I am sure that these two deputations were able to appreciate some of the difficulties of the Ministry of Food. I was able to show that we do impose a reasonable restriction on growers and that we set out to secure as far as is humanly possible an even distribution of tomatoes throughout the country. Last year the amount of tomatoes available worked out at 4¼ lbs. per head and in the North-Eastem area it was 3.85 lbs.
Hon. Members must realise that willy nilly there is a certain advantage to those who live near the growing areas. Certain of the growers have retail licences to sell direct to the public. We restrict those licences, and not unnaturally the growers are apt to complain. The very fact that these retail licences exist means that there is a tendency for those in the growing areas to get rather more, but we shall do our best to secure that so far as is humanly possible the amount distributed over the country is even and that those in the North-East do not merely get tomatoes during the glut period. I think that in general we can say that although last year was the first year in which the tomato distribution scheme has been operated and that it was the first time that anywhere in the world an attempt


had been made to control a highly perishable crop of such a large amount, the scheme worked reasonably well. In November last year we began going round the country to learn from the experience of growers, primary and secondary wholesalers and retailers what had gone wrong and what we might put right. I do not want to anticipate, particularly in view of the warning of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Taylor), but I assure the House that we want to do all we can, and I think we shall succeed, to secure that the distribution scheme will be even better than it was last year.
The hon. Member for North Battersea referred to what he called inequalities in the distribution of rationed goods. He complained that some people got pork all the time and that some people never got good cuts of fish. The House must realise that from time to time the meat position has its difficulties and that it is better to have pork than to have no meat at all. I was interested to hear Mr. Paul Winterton, after a year in Russia, broadcast the other day that the rations in this country would appear to the Russians as a series of banquets. In regard to fish, the amount of prime fish being caught is very small; it is only 1 per cent. of the total. Let no one suppose that somewhere in this country there are large numbers of people feeding themselves every day on soles, turbot and brill. There are not. Our main supply of fish now is cod, and for purposes of transport ecnomy it is filleted at the ports. I think that hon. Members will agree—indeed, we were pressed to induce the port wholesalers to fillet—that we should not go back on our instructions and have the fish sent whole, although I know that cod fillets do not look as good as cod steaks or the whole fish. Let us recognise that we are doing pretty well if we get fish at all. What the hon. Gentleman said is entirely in line wish the views of the Minister of Food when he said that variety in the diet is of great value apart from the calorie or vitamin content. I can assure the House that the object of the Department has been to introduce variety wherever possible. He quoted what Mrs. Roosevelt said. Remember that Mrs. Roosevelt was acting as a very good friend to this country. There are perhaps those in the United States of America who do

not fully realise some of the deprivations we have had to suffer, but——

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member must not suggest that I was casting any aspersion upon Mrs. Roosevelt.

Mr. Mabane: The hon. Member must let me complete my sentence. I was saying that some people in the United States are not perhaps fully aware of the deprivations we have had to put up with, but I am certain the Administration there is, and I think Mrs. Roosevelt's words were intended to, and perhaps did secure, a greater degree of willing consent throughout the United States to the great help that is being given to us at the expense of citizens of the United States. We were very glad to see that Mrs. Roosevelt thought fit and proper to draw the attention of the inhabitants of her country to the very real need we had of all the generous help they were giving to us. The hon. Gentleman hoped that some relaxation could be obtained. If he will suggest any relaxations that we could obtain I shall be very glad to know them. He remarked upon the statement of the Prime Minister that our shipping position seemed likely to improve, but nowadays it is not merely a matter of shipping but a matter of food production. After four years of war it is not unnatural that in some producing areas there is not the abundance of food that there was four years ago, but I do assure him that wherever we can see a chance of importing foods that will lend variety to diet and in such a form that they can be distributed, I hope through the points system, we shall do it.
I should like to say a word about the points system. After all, the points system has been successful and has been a way of bringing to the generality of people some of those tasty bits of which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster spoke. But there are other things that lie outside the points system and lie outside the general rationing system. These, as I pointed out in the Debate upon the Estimates, are mainly perishable commodities, such as soft fruits and tomatoes. There are other tasty bits to which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) has often referred—poultry, meat offals, rabbits, game, and so on. I must emphasise that the amount, calculated per head of the population, of


these things is extremly small. The House has always recognised the extreme difficulty of bringing into any rationing system those highly perishable commodities. All I can say is that work in the Department has never ceased on methods to secure that, if at all possible, these tasty bits shall be brought as evenly as possible to the consumers' tables.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word or two about the general background of this Debate. After all, if there is anything in what the hon. Member for North Battersea has been saying it is that he desires a further degree of control. It is very evident that the further we press this matter of control the greater the difficulties we meet. It needs far more manpower in administration, it needs far more man-power and effort in enforcement, the nearer you get to the edge of the rationing procedure. The House ought to consider carefully what it wants. It has recently shown some reluctance to accept the views of Departments that the flood of Orders is really necessary. We have heard a lot about Statutory Rules and Orders, and I must say that the Ministry of Food is no more agreeable to a flood of Orders than this House, but we cannot carry control further unless we make more Orders. And when we make the Orders let no one imagine we thereby achieve the object at once. What we do is to create offences and often the Orders are extremely difficult to enforce, and we create further problems for those for whom the hon. Member for Sedgefield spoke, the shops. We also create, perhaps, an atmosphere of suspicion.
Let me give a simple example. It was suggested yesterday that it was owing to the machinations of the Ministry of Food that tomatoes had disappeared from the shops. We could have tomatoes, strawberries, eggs in the shop windows and on sale to-day by one simple process, by removing control—and having tomatoes at, what, 6s., or 7s. a lb., and eggs at, what, 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d. each? What we do by control is to bring the prices of these commodities, which admittedly are in short supply, within the purchasing range of practically the whole population. Thereby we enormously expand the demand, and is it small wonder then that these things are not so readily available for purchase? I feel that the food laws of this country are being

obeyed at present because they are reasonable. I was much struck by something which the horn Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) told me the other day. He has recently been in many many countries/ east and west, and he said, "This is the only country in which rationing works; this is the only country in which, if you go to the ordinary man or woman in the street and say, 'Where do I get this on the black market?' they do not know what you are talking about, or know where the black market is."
Therefore, we may take credit to ourselves that the food laws are being observed because they are reasonable. If we were to try to create an economic structure that was perfect, complete and logical we might bring the whole of the food rationing procedure into disrepute, because we should make it impossible of enforcement. We direct our enforcement officers on to the real black market offenders. We have not got all that many officers, and we do not want to take a further toll of man-power, and we do not want them to chase after offences that are either minor or not really black market offences. Nevertheless, I do hope there will go out from this Debate a balanced opinion, shall I say, an opinion such as is represented by the hon. Member for North Battersea, who desires that all shall do their best to play fairly; and in this war we have to rely a lot on what people do of their own volition and not what they will do because the law says they must. I hope, too, that we shall get out into the country the point of view of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and that is that we in this House do recognise the difficulties that face the food distributive trades. We know that many temporary workers in that trade have never worked in a food shop before and are doing a piece of work of great difficulty with considerable skill, and we do not wish them to feel that this House regards them as people who are doing their best to give unfair preferences to this person or to that. When hon. Members have specific cases I ask them to let us know of them, so that we may follow them up. As to tipping nobody has given us a specific case to work on. Let us have the cases, and then I am sure we shall have the proper people watched, and those who, as is the case with the vast majority of people, are playing the game will feel quite happy that this House has full sympathy with them.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright (Bodmin): I should like to put a point in connection with the distribution of oranges. As it is common knowledge that they are vitally important to young children, and particularly to infants, would it not be possible to have oranges distributed from the food offices rather than from the shops? At the food offices they have the records of young people and could see that those for whom the oranges were intended in fact got them.

Mr. Mabane: We have to do our best to work with the food trade. There are proper channels of distribution, and if we interfere the result may be that we shall not get anything like as good distribution. I think we can rely on it that the majority of traders do play the game, and I think the proper way is to maintain the existing channels of distribution. If there are improper practices let them be brought to our notice.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Court-hope) for his courtesy in being present, because I want to raise one or two questions concerning the House of Commons Members' Fund, and he is chairman of the trustees. The other day I may have caused him some personal inconvenience, I am afraid, by putting down a Question on this seldom raised subject for a day that was unexpected to him. If the fault was mine I should like sincerely to apologise. It is not in any spirit of criticism that I am bringing forward this subject to-day. Rather it seems to me we should pay our tribute to the trustees of this Fund. The Act which established it was passed just before the beginning of the war, so it has been running for three years, and I believe this is the first occasion on which there has been any opportunity or when any hon. Member has sought facilities to raise questions relating to the Fund.
I am sure I am speaking in the name of all hon. Members in expressing our gratitude to the trustees for the work, without publicity and without thought of material or other reward, which they have been doing in the administration of the Fund. I hope too that they will welcome the interest disclosed in the work of the

Fund by the very fact of this Debate being held. Hon. Members probably realise that two important documents relating to the Fund have become available to them recently. A White Paper, the Accounts of the House of Commons Members' Fund for 1941–42, has been published, and within the last few days my right hon. and gallant Friend has also made available in the Vote Office an important letter from the Government Actuary, whom the trustees of the Fund had evidently consulted about certain matters connected with it. Hon. Members who are interested will find these documents of great importance, and the point I am going to raise arises out of both of them.
If we look at the fortunes of this Fund, to which we have all been contributing £12 a year for the past three years, we shall agree, I think, that the financial development has up to the present been favourable. There are four or five points I should like to mention. First, the experience up to date has been that about one-tenth of the amount collected from Members has been paid out in pensions, and nine-tenths retained in the Fund. As a result of that, a balance had been accumulated up to September of last year amounting to some £21,500, and so long as this Parliament continues it is likely that the balance will continue to grow at the rate of something like £7,000 a year. Hon. Members will naturally ask how many pensions have been granted from the Fund during these three years. We learn that three pensions have been granted to ex-Members of the House, and 10 to the widows of ex-Members. Of the three pensions granted to ex-Members, only one, I understand, is still in payment. In one respect the promoters of this plan of a pension fund have suffered disappointment. Hon. Members will remember that in the original Bill a Clause was inserted making provision for the receipt of gifts or bequests to the fund from any of our colleagues. I believe I am right in saying that the Fund has not attracted any such gifts or bequests. If that is the case, it is only one more piece of testimony to the unfortunately too well-known fact that the moment you put a statutory obligation on people, they cease to make charitable gifts in the same direction.
Lastly, there is a point which concerns us all. The statutory contribution which we make is £12 a year, but we are speci-


fically debarred from treating that as a charge against our income for Income Tax purposes. That is to say, we do not receive the £12, but we have to pay Income Tax upon it as though we had received it. Rises in the rate of Income Tax have considerably increased that burden upon us. When the Act was passed, £12 was equivalent to about £16 gross on our income. With the Income Tax at 10s. in the £, it is now equivalent to something like £23 or £24 gross. If anybody is thinking of suggesting to a friend that he should enter the House of Commons, the friend should be reminded that owing to the operation of the Fund the salary of a Member is not £600 but about £576 a year.
I have given the main points which emerge from examination of the accounts up to date. I mentioned that some £21,500 was now accumulated in the Fund, and it is rising yearly. The Government Actuary has pointed out that this is not a lovely disposable surplus for the trustees to play with. On the contrary, about half of that represents the capitalised value of the pensions which are now in payment. Quite rightly, the trustees, when they determine to make a pension, do not leave it to chance whether they can meet that pension in future years. Though they hope that Parliament will not repeal the Act, and that they will continue to get in our subscriptions, they reserve in the Fund the capital value of the pension from the outset. It is necessary therefore to build up a considerable fund, in order that it may be able to continue to meet the pensions which have become payable.
The other half of the £21,500 is free. It is not yet earmarked for pensions. It is available for pension claims that may arise in the future. I very much hope that the trustees will not not be in haste to disperse that surplus, by seeking to take advantage of the one loophole given to them in the Act, whereby they may go slightly outside the restrictive conditions in special circumstances, and grant pensions to people who, on a strict interpretation, would not be qualified. The reason why it is clearly necessary to build up a considerable surplus is that a General Election lies ahead. We do not know what the fate of any of us will be. Every General Election turns a certain number of hon. Members into ex-Members

of Parliament, and thereby will increase the potential claim for pension on the Fund.
The Government Actuary has indicated that if this Parliament goes on to the autumn of next year, there will be a free surplus in the Fund of some £20,000. I prefer to take a worse hypothesis, which is that this Parliament runs to the end of a 10-year life. If that happens, it will be very important for the Fund, because only Members who have served for 10 years in Parliament can derive benefit from it. If this Parliament should continue until the autumn of 1945, every hon. Member who has survived since the last General Election will become a potential beneficiary of the Fund. I calculate that there will be some £23,000 of free surplus by the autumn of 1945, and it seems as though there would be some 400 possible claimants. By "possible claimants" I mean this: There have been some 190 by-elections since the last General Election, and there will be a number more before this Parliament runs out. There will therefore be something like 400 sitting Members at the time of the Dissolution who will have had 10 years' service and may therefore become, at any time, applicants for the benefits of the Fund.
A free surplus of £23,000 would suffice to pay pensions at the full rate of £150 per year to about 16 ex-Members. It is quite impossible to say, and ridiculous even to conjecture, whether the trustees will be met with more than 16 good claims or fewer than that number, after the next General Election. We cannot tell what will happen to any of us. Neither can we tell whether those who retire or are defeated at the General Election will be in such circumstances that either they or their future widows will need to apply for benefit. This one point emerges. As a result of this long Parliament, I submit to the trustees that the peak demand on this Fund will be reached considerably earlier than anyone could have anticipated at the outset. As only those can derive benefit from the Fund who were contributors to it at some time after the Act was passed, all those who had ceased to be Members of Parliament before 1939 cannot be beneficiaries. In 1939 it looked as though a considerable number of years would pass before the peak number of claimants would be reached. We know


from the investigation which was undertaken before the Act was passed, that in 1937 there were some 450 Members and ex-Members of Parliament who had given 10 years' service to this House.
I have pointed out that by 1945 we may well have 400 Members with over 10 years' service, and it strikes me that the peak level, the time when we may say that current claims on the Fund have risen to their peak, will be reached comparatively soon. That is to say, we should fairly soon be able to estimate what the average demand on the Fund will be. That was a thing which none of us could do when the Measure was going through. It was one of the reasons which made our Debates so conjectural, though I do not know whether it was actually one of the reasons which caused us to sit here discussing it until 8 o'clock one morning during the Committee stage.
The coming of a General Election affects vitally the number of pension claims by ex-Members which may be made, but it should not affect in the same way the number of claims that may be made by widows of Members. That number will move more gradually and not by fits and starts—at least I take it that that is the case. From a woman's point of view, a General Election may end her husband's Parliamentary life, but it does not necessarily kill off her husband. For all these reasons, it seems to me that at a relatively early date the trustees will be able to judge what is the average annual demand that is going to be made on their resources. After that—though this too must be conjectural—I believe the Fund will accumulate a real disposable surplus, and the trustees will have to consider then what shall be done with it.
My own belief—and this is the chief point I wish to put before the House—is that when that time comes the House should be fully consulted. There may then be—we cannot tell—a stronger case for reducing the contributions than for seeking to extend the limits of eligibility for pensions. One reason why I say that is that I always regret extra expenses imposed on Members of this House. We want to see the doors of this House opened as widely as possible to all citizens, whereas every additional financial burden attached to membership of the House tends towards limiting entry to

people endowed with large private means or backed by the financial strength of some great organisation. I was made a little anxious by seeing that, within the past year, the trustees had evidently consulted the Actuary to inquire what would be the cost of relaxing some of the conditions.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale): On a point of Order. This is a most unusual situation. There is no precedent for the discussion now taking place, and I am raising this point of Order in order that you, Mr. Speaker, may have an opportunity of guiding the House. It is in Order on the Adjournment for lion. Members to raise questions of administration, but what the hon. Member has been saying during the last 10 minutes relates to amending an Act that the House has passed. Surely it is improper to have a discussion of that kind on the Adjournment. All that the hon. Member can really discuss is the administration of the Fund by the trustees and not the amendment of the Act which set up the Fund. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member is now entirely out of Order in his proposals.

Mr. Speaker: This point of Order is of some interest. I confess that I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with the increasing feeling that, in some of his suggestions, he was definitely talking about legislation, which would be wrong. In so far as the contribution to the Fund is already dealt with by legislation, it is also wrong to suggest that it should be altered. On the other hand, discussions of the administration of the Fund by the trustees is certainly in Order.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: The questions which were raised by the trustees in their inquiry to the Government Actuary did not contemplate amending legislation but dealt only with power which exists in the present Act to moderate the 10 year qualification. The trustees asked the Government Actuary what would be the effect if they were to meet one or two rather distressing cases, because they would have welcomed the power to award a pension to the widow of a member who had not served the full 10 years. That was why they made the inquiry. As a result of the answer, we decided that we must not do so.

Mr. Bevan: May I further submit that if the hon. Member is to be allowed to persist in the line which he has been taking, it will be open to any hon. Member on the Adjournment, at any time, to bring this matter under review—a matter for which indeed there is no ministerial responsibility. I submit therefore that the speech of the hon. Member should be strictly confined to the question of administration of the Fund by the trustees, and that it should make no proposals whatever for amending the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Two points have been raised. The first was raised by the hon. Baronet. I quite understand that there must be administrative action by the trustees and it would be in order to discuss that matter. The second point, made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) I have not looked into. How far we may or may not discuss the Fund is a matter which I will consider. In the present case, I think it is for the general convenience of the House that we should do so even though I am not sure whether it is strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr. Brooke: If at any time I was out of Order I must apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. But at the time when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) interrupted me I was referring to a question which the trustees had put to the Government Actuary, and that was quite clearly a matter of administration I hope you, Sir, and the House will allow me to pursue that matter one moment longer. The trustees, as their chairman has just told the House, in connection with their permissive power in special circumstances to make payments notwithstanding that all the requirements of the Schedule to the Act are not complied with, approached the Government Actuary to inquire what would be the financial effect if they did relax their rules in certain classes of case.
I wish to submit to the House that any substantial relaxation of the 10 years rule would be undesirable. This permissive paragraph was put in the Act to meet a case where a man had sat in this House for nine years and 11 months. That kind of case was actually brought up, as hon. Members will recollect, on the Committee stage of the Measure. It seems to me to be introducing a real

change of principle to raise the question whether 10 years can, in certain cases, be reduced to a 7½ year limit, for this reason: In normal times no one can sit in this House for 10 years without having been a Member of three Parliaments, that is to say, without having faced the electorate three times. If that is reduced to 7½ years, it will reduce the number of Parliaments necessary for qualification from three to two. I want to say to the House and the chairman of the trustees that before any large change of that kind is; made, or indeed contemplated, the House as a whole should be consulted. But in winding up my speech I wish to express once again on my behalf, and I believe that of all my hon. Friends, our great gratitude to the trustees for the faithful manner in which they have been discharging their responsibilities for these three years.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) for raising this, question and giving me an opportunity on behalf of my fellow trustees to say a few words about the position of this Members' Fund. I am particularly glad to do so because various letters which I have had from present Members and past Members and their representatives have conveyed to my mind the impression that there is a great deal of ignorance about the Fund. For instance, I had an application the other day on behalf of a man who was a Member of Parliament, but who ceased to be a Member nearly 40 years ago, and does not come within the qualification at all. I think it is well that a very brief statement of the position should be made and I am very glad that the House should be interested to hear it.
As my hon. Friend has quite accurately said, the normal income of this Fund is £7,300 a year, less certain amounts due to casual vacancies. On a Dissolution there will be another gap when the Fund will receive, for a short time, no money at all, but while the House is sitting we are getting over £7,000 a year. The general expectation upon which the Departmental Committee made its recommendations and upon which the Act was drawn, was that we might assume an average length of Parliament of something round about four years, and the


Actuary was able to calculate the average number of Members who would either retire at the end of each Parliament or who would fail to obtain re-election. The service qualification laid down in the Act is ten years both for the Member himself, and for his widow after his death. The length of the present Parliament has upset calculations. If we continue for another two years or a little longer, every Member who has served throughout this Parliament will be qualified by length of service for a pension. I think one is bound to assume, as many of us are getting older, that there will be a larger than average number of retirements, and who can foresee how many unsuccessful attempts to obtain re-election may take place. Still less can we foresee how large a proportion of those who either do not seek re-election or fail to obtain it, will be in such a position that they will have to make an application upon this pensions Fund.
The trustees feel that we have to anticipate a rather heavy demand upon the Fund after the next General Election. My hon. Friend has given quite accurately tbe figures up to September of last year. I can bring them up to date in a few words. At the present time the accumulation in our hands is just over £26,000. The number of pensions which we have awarded has been three to ex-Members and 12 to the widows of ex-Members. Two of those ex-Members have passed away, and there is now only one ex-Member's pension being paid. Two of the widows have also passed away, and one has had an improvement in her financial position, and no longer asks for pension. So at the present time, nine widows are receiving pension, and at the present time the cost of pensions is £765 a year. The administration, including the expenses of the Fees Office and the Public Trustee, who is the Custodian Trustee, costs about £170 a year. I should like to express now on behalf of the trustees our appreciation of the admirable services which we are receiving from the officers of the Fees Office who do the accounts, and the Public Trustee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are under an obligation to prevent any charge from falling on the Treasury, so it is particularly important to see that the affairs of the Fund should be cheaply administered, and I am satisfied that they are.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: How is the amount of the pension determined? Is there any limit or average?

Sir G. Courthope: Oh, yes, it is laid down in the Act that a pension to a qualified ex-Member must not exceed £150 a year, and must not bring his net income to a sum exceeding £225 a year. In the case of a widow, the pension must not exceed £75 and must not bring her net income to a sum exceeding £125. That necessitates an inquiry into means. I can assure the House that that inquiry is conducted as sympathetically as the Act of Parliament allows. If we go on at the present rate for another three years or so we shall probably accumulate something approaching the £50,000 Fund which the Departmental Committee recommended as the minimum reserve at which we should aim before contemplating any variation or coming to the House to ask them to authorise any variation.
I want to say a word or two about the actuarial capital position of these pensions. Some hon. Members will, no doubt, have read the Report of the Government Actuary which was ordered by the House to be published only a few weeks ago. It contemplates that a very substantial portion of our existing accumulation represents the capital value of the pensions already being paid. The mere nature of the case leads one to believe that at a time immediately following a General Election there will be a run of some kind on the Fund, and that subsequently, during the existence of the succeeding Parliament there will tend to be an addition to the accumulation, unless the pensions which we are actually paying year by year exceed the revenue of the Fund.
I cannot bind the Trustees of the future and I want to make it clear that I am only expressing the view which I myself hold, and which is supported by my fellow trustees at the present time. It is that if at any time—as after a Dissolution—there is a number of applications from qualified ex-Members or from the widows of qualified ex-Members, we ought not to be restrained by the capital actuarial position of the moment so long as we do not award annual pensions exceeding our annual revenue. I feel that we are entitled to assume that as the revenue is provided by Act of Parliament that that revenue will continue until Parliament repeals the Act. I doubt whether Parliament will do so, but


in such a case one could reasonably expect Parliament to take on some responsibility for the commitments created under the Statute which was repealed. I do not therefore feel myself that the trustees are bound to limit their awards to the amount which is actuarially available after making the full capital provision for all existing pensions. This is only an expression of opinion, but we are not actually bound by the Act to maintain capital actuarial solvency. I think the occasion may arise when we shall feel free to go above it.
With regard to one matter raised by the hon. Member I am afraid I cannot deal with the question of Income Tax. I would like to be able to say that the £12 a year which is deducted from our £600, would, automatically be regarded as an admissible expense for the purpose of Income Tax, but that is not the case. It is not for me to defend that position but I am a little doubtful whether the Chancellor, under the present circumstances, would think the time appropriate to vary it.
There is one point I should like to refer to on the question of these contributions. Back-bench Members have their contributions deducted by the officials of the Fees Office, but the matter is not so simple in the case of Ministers. The Fees Office have to receive from the Department in which a Minister is serving, the appropriate amount of contribution for the period in which he has served in that Ministry. It is not always easy to get prompt payments. I hope that Ministers who hear me will endeavour to see that their Departments make their contributions as soon as possible, as it complicates the accounts when a substantial proportion of the sum due to the Fund dribbles in over an extended period. I should make it clear that at the present moment the interest which we receive on our investments—which is tax-free—practically covers the pensions that we are paying; so that we get practically the whole of the contributions of £7,300 a year, less fluctuations owing to vacancies, as an addition to the accumulated Fund. That is a very happy position to be in, but when a Dissolution-comes, if it is followed by a flood of applications—although I hope that no Member will be in such a position that he will have to seek a pension—it will be a different matter. I feel that so long as we keep our present reserve intact and

award only pensions which will not exceed the annual contributions, we shall not be going beyond the limits of reasonable safety.

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY

Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern): I make no apology for raising the question of beef prices, which I have no doubt will also interest the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), and the future of our livestock industry. But, as I know that there are other Members who wish to raise different subjects, I shall be brief. I have the honour to represent in this House one of the great beef-producing districts of this country, and, indeed, of the world—the home of Aberdeen Angus. There are two specific questions that I would like to put to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who, I believe, is going to answer this Debate. First, is the fall in prices under the present price structure between the Spring and the Autumn justified? I am inclined to think that it may be too steep in relation to the present cost of feeding. In other words, I think that many farmers are apt either to sell out as quickly as possible, or to hang on like grim death through the winter in order to realise the higher prices offered in the spring. If they sell in the autumn the fall in price is so steep that they lose a considerable part of their profits by having to feed the animals during the summer months. I think that there should be some fall in prices between the spring and the autumn; but I think that the fall is, at present, rather too steep. The second question is, What is the effect, generally, on pedigree herds of the present policy of taking into account gross weight alone, as against weight and quality of meat? That, I think, is the more important of these two questions.
I admit that the high-quality beef animal is more easily and cheaply fed than the big-boned Irish type of cattle. Nevertheless, the contention of the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society is that under the present grading system producers of high class beef are, in fact, supplying the Government with a certain quantity of meat, estimated by them at something between 25s. and 45s. per animal for which they receive no return; and that they are to this extent subsidising the production of


lower, or rough, class beasts. It is a disturbing fact, which the House has to take into account, that, since the commencement of the present system of grading, registrations in the Aberdeen Angus Herd Book have fallen by 36 per cent. I would like to have the opinion of my right hon. Friend upon that fact I do not say that I support the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society in all their contentions; but I, and I daresay other hon. Members, have received communications from them which cause us considerable anxiety. We are exceedingly anxious about the effect of the present price structure upon the breeding of the highest quality cattle. That is the question upon which in particular, I want the opinion of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will agree that we cannot afford to have a serious decrease in the breeding of high-quality animals in this country. Before the war our export trade in pedigree stock was substantial, and valuable. My own constituency used regularly to supply sires for the Argentine herds every year. After the war we shall have to do it for many other countries besides the Argentine; for many European countries, where the prewar herds have been annihilated by the Germans. The reconstitution of good, sound commercial herds will, in my view, be a matter of a vital importance to the whole world after the war. Without it there will be no hope of realising the aspirations of the international Food Conference at Hot Springs.
This brings me to my concluding point—I said that I would be short, and I am going to be short. What is going to be the livestock policy of His Majesty's Government in the immediate future? For the past four years it has been necessary to concentrate upon the production of crops for human consumption in this country. This, in my opinion, has been largely due to the shortsightedness of pre-war Governments in allowing the land to go down to grass year after year, and the workers to be driven off the land; and in failing to build up adequate reserves of essential commodities. I do not think that it is generally realised that we embarked upon this war with a most serious shortage of feeding stuffs, which it took a very considerable time to rectify. The first four-year plan, the crop production plan, is now drawing to its close. It has been highly successful. We have achieved a

most remarkable increase in crop production.
What is to be the next four-year plan? It will have to take into account the necessity of renewing the fertility of the land, which, owing to the reduction in livestock, is now endangered. Natural manure has a quality and an effect upon the soil which chemical productions have not. In order to restore fertility, an increased acreage of rotation grasses and clovers, or leys, and an increased head of livestock, must not only be contemplated but secured. The plough must be taken round the farm. With the amount of land now available, which can carry two or three tillage crops, including roots and oats for feeding, this should surely be possible.
We have still greatly to increase the production of milk in this country. Milk is the foundation of all nutrition. But let the land produce what it can produce best. It is false economics to try to force milk production upon districts which are not suited to it—which are better suited to the production of high-quality beef, for example. I hope the Minister will agree with me that our long-term objective should be the production both of the finest beef cattle and the best dairy herds in the world; and that we should try to eliminate the second-rate, hybrid animal, which produces inferior milk in inadequate quantities, and is finally converted into inferior cow beef. That is not going to be the basis of a healthy British agriculture after the war. We want the best, not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world.
I hope the Minister will also agree with me that when the present methods of control cease, there must be a permanent meat corporation or board in this country, with powers to establish centralised slaughter-houses up and down the country, to pay producers on dead weight and dead grade, according to the quality of the carcase, and to organise the flow of meat to the markets. In the past the marketing of meat has been chaotic, and that has done no good either to the producers, or to the general economic well-being of this country. Lastly, I hope the Minister will agree that leys and livestock are going to be the key to a further expansion of food output in the next four years. When all is said and done, arable stock farming is the basis of British agriculture and we must never forget that.

Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western): Hon. Members like myself, who are gravely perturbed about the future of our livestock industry, are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothy) for having initiated this Debate. I would like, if I may, to clear the air on one point about which there may be some misunderstanding, before dealing with the main questions raised by my hon. Friend. It may be thought that this is entirely a Scottish question, because Scottish Members have raised if from time to time in this House, and for all I know they may be the only people who will contribute to this Debate to-day. It is true that Scottish farmers have a very definite issue at stake. They have been striving for generations, and not without success, not only to improve their own cattle, but to improve the cattle of other countries. It is no exaggeration to say that our farmers, to their credit, have attained that goal in a fashion not excelled by any other producers, as the records of the Smithfield and other clubs will show. In pre-war days Scotland produced a quarter of all the beef produced in the United Kingdom.
Small wonder then, if we in the North view with great concern any tendency to crush out the smooth high-quality animals, the result of years of careful breeding and selection in favour of the low-grade, poorer, rougher types whose dearth of edible meat is only equalled by their abundance of wasteful bone and offal. But this is not a Scottish question, nor even an English question. It is not a question of the pedigree herd, or of the export trade: it is a much wider question. It is a national question, because the fundamental wellbeing of the British livestock industry as a whole is at stake. Everyone will agree that that industry will form the main pillar of our post-war agricultural structure. Pre-war legislation, by way of the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, made available a certain sum of money which was, according to the policy of the Livestock Commissioners, paid out in subsidy per live cwt., graded according to quality and differentiating as between the home animal and the imported animal. It was rightly designed to secure that every encouragement would be given to the breeding of animals of the very highest quality, so that our home producers might com-

pete effectively against the South American import.
Payments for 1937–38 reached the sum of £4,050,000. Time and again it had been held up to us in this House, and by no one more persistently and more effectively than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, that assistance should only be made available for cattle and sheep of the right quality, otherwise farmers would constantly be coming back to this House asking for bigger and bigger subsidies. There is force and cogency in that argument. It is in line with scientific breeding policy, the ultimate object of which is to breed an animal of the very highest possible quality yielding the maximum amount of edible flesh on a given quantity of food. In other words the goal of the progressive stock breeder was quality, and more quality, wth economy in production.
What has happened since the war began? The Government took two major decisions of policy: First, that milk should have first priority and, secondly, that quantity, which is a misnomer, should take precedence over quality. I do not think that anyone would disagree that the first decision was correct. Everybody knows that milk production must have priority, but I think that most people will concede that in the sphere of beef production, which is an important sphere, very great danger lies ahead if, as a definite matter of policy, our price structure is so framed as definitely to encourage the rough, mongrel-bred, low type animals as against the smooth, superior-quality animal, which previously competed successfully with the Argentine import. Such a policy can only have one result, a definite deterioration in quality. That has been going on since war began, not only in respect of cattle but of sheep. Farmers who used to breed good class animals do not now bother to do so. Under the grading system of to-day an inferior animal reaches a respectable killing-out percentage, although a great deal of him consists of bone and offal, whereas the smooth quality animal, which previously competed successfully with the Argentine import hands over to the Ministry of Food whatever excess flesh he may possess above the maximum percentage. If he kills out at 64 per cent., the producer does not get the difference between


58 and 64. The Government collar it, and the producer gets nothing at all.
I do not say that the Government were wrong in making the decisions for the two priorities mentioned. My criticism is that they swung too far off the mark by failing to realise that if, as a matter of definite policy, they encouraged inferior animals at the expense of the superior animal, they would be cutting into the ordinary commercial cattle of the country irrespective altogether of breed. They are cutting into this reservoir on which we rely to meet Argentine imports in the ordinary commercial market. It is very difficult to assess what happens under the grading scheme. I do not want to jump into complicated arguments about edible meat percentages. Suffice it to say that there is twice as much bone in a 50 per cent. killer as in a 60 per cent. At equal weights the high quality animal kills out at from 5 to 10 per cent. higher. Their stomachs do not differ in any way. All that happens is that they use their food differently. Generations of feeding have seen to that. It is not understood that scales of rations do not rule. What rules is breed type.
May I give an illustration to the Parliamentary Secretary of what happens to-day? Take two steers of the same weight, steer "A" and steer "B." Steer "A" is a rough, coarse, inferior steer. After exhaustive examination the graders come to the conclusion that it can struggle up to a killing-out percentage of 58. It is different in the case of steer "B," an animal of the same weight, a smooth, well-bred animal, possibly of the breed to which the hon Member for East Aberdeen referred, the graders see the difference at once. They know that there is little need to put their hands on him. He goes right over the maximum grade and may kill at 62 per cent. One would have thought that for the high-quality animal a higher price would be paid than for the lower quality animal. Not a bit of it. The two fetch exactly the same price. If that is justice, I do not know what is. The answer to all this is that the farmer concludes that it is not worth while producing a high-quality animal, that any old thing will do, rough or coarse; it does not matter. I have heard it said that there is no apparent deterioration in quality in the country. I would say to those who hold

that view that probably they never were able to distinguish between the high quality and inferior animal at any time. Everybody knows this is the day of the big, coarse steer.
This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when one realises that after this war we are bound to return in a large measure to livestock farming. Present policy is bound to place the home producer of quality animals in a very difficult position when he comes again to have to battle with foreign importers. The effect upon our pedigree herds is already serious. This does not apply only to the Aberdeen Angus breed. There are several other breeds equally affected—the Devon, the Hereford, Sussex, and Galloway. I have here two volumes of the herd books of this great Aberdeen Angus breed. The one I hold in my hand is the pre-war volume, of considerable size and thickness, before Government policy became effective. Here is the present volume for 1942. It is only about one-third of the size. No wonder that the Aberdeen Angus breeders in particular have something to say about it. I wish to concede that there has been a change of heart recently on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and also on the part of the Minister of Food. The Minister of Agriculture, I note, said at a meeting in Cambridge the other day that we must ensure that such cattle as we have become efficient converters of feeding-stuffs grown on farms. Does not that mean that the Minister of Agriculture is getting a little afraid of what is lying ahead of him in the fatstock world? Is it not an admission that badly bred cattle can never become efficient converters of food-stuffs no matter how well balanced the rations are.
The Minister of Food has met us part of the way. Recently he extended his special grade—58 per cent. and over—from four to eight months. I am going to ask him to-day—though I do not see any one from that Department here at the moment—to consider certain alterations in the price structure. The first suggestion I make is that the special grade should be carried on for 12 months. I cannot see any earthly reason why it should be limited to eight. I also wish to suggest that the top grade and the next below it, which is called the A-plus, should be increased by 1s. 6d. per cwt.
That would definitely encourage quality as against the inferior animal. I further suggest that the Minister should consider reducing on a sliding scale the price of animals of excessive weight. It is gross waste to feed steers to 14 cwts.
I submit that the alterations in prices suggested would encourage home feeders, stimulate and invigorate the pedigree herds of this country. This would definitely help to restore the beef production side of our agriculture to the proper level.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Does my hon. Friend mean 1s. 6d. on each unit?

Mr. Snadden: All I am asking is that the special grade or quality animal of 58 per cent. and over should be increased by 1s. 6d. a cwt. and carried for 12 months instead of eight.

Sir P. Hannon: Without reference to size?

Mr. Snadden: Without reference to anything. I am not even asking the Government to pay for all the edible flesh left on their hands. To-day they collar the flesh if the animal exceeds the maximum and I ask that the price of this grade be increased by 1s. 6d. per cwt. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will tell me that he is looking into the livestock policy after the war and so on, but I hope that he will try and impress on the Minister of Food that something must be done about it now.

Mr. Price: Lest it should be thought that this matter mainly concerns those interested in agriculture North of the Border, I hasten to add a few words in support of the hon. Members who have raised this question in order to show that this is an English as well as a Scottish interest. I have in my constituency and county some very good beef herds. Indeed, agricultural interests in the South-West of England generally are very much concerned with the price policy which has encouraged, or failed to encourage, quality beef. I will admit that the Ministry of Food have a certain justification for saying that in war-time more attention should be paid to quantity than to quality and while I am prepared

to admit that in war-time this may be necessary, I must say that this can be carried too far. It has been already carried too far. The Ministry have made some improvements, but what we are asking to-day is that they should continue to look more favourably now on the higher quality animal. Whether it be in the form of extending the months of the year in which the higher addition is paid to the 58 per cent. killing-out animal, or whether it be in the form of another 1s. or 1s. 6d. to the 58 per cent. killing-out animal, or whether it be both, I will not say, but whether it is one or the other there should be further concessions. I have reason strongly to suspect that the Ministry of Food are doing quite well on the price they are paying for the high percentage killing-out animal. In a sense it might be said that there is a fund accumulating from which they can well afford to give a little. All that I am asking for is that a few crumbs should fall from the rich man's table to the Lazarus of beef production. Incidentally, I am sorry that a representative of the Ministry of Food is not on the Treasury Bench for this Debate.
The Ministry of Agriculture is now, quite rightly, trying to encourage the keeping of beef cattle and sheep on the farm and is not laying sole stress upon dairying. I understand that war agricultural executive committees have been instructed on this line of general improvement in the type of animal and that they should not be solely concerned with dairy cattle. It is true that milk is the No. 1 priority, quite rightly, but an attempt should be made now to see what else we can do. As we have been so successful in cropping policy and farmers are producing so much more per acre, we can well afford to see an improvement in the number of beef cattle and sheep. It is not only the Aberdeen Angus which is first-quality beef. There are other herds in my county and in neighbouring counties, for instance, the "Rubies of the West"—the Herefords—which are cattle of high beef quality. Although perhaps their average is not so high as some of the Scottish beeves, I think it is important to encourage a better quality of Hereford. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke of the importance of maintaining the fertility of the soil and of encouraging all kinds of cattle. I would confirm what he said,


and I would like to add that scientific investigation has proved that the manurial values of beef cattle is higher than the manurial value of dairy cattle. The percentage of nitrogen values coming from beef cattle is better, and, therefore, if we have in mind, as we should, the maintenance of the fertility of the soil, that is a further reason for the encouragement of beef cattle with a view to maintaining that fertility. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some little encouragement when he comes to reply to the Debate.

Mr. Wedderburn (Renfrew, Western: I do not think that I would myself press the first of the points which have been raised in this Debate, namely, that with regard to the steep decline in prices between the spring and autumn. In Scotland most arable farmers are more in the habit of fattening cattle indoors in the winter rather than on grass; and it is a good thing that they should be encouraged to do that, so that they can make more manure. I would, however, like to reinforce the second point. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is taking serious note of what has been said. The position now is that the Ministry of Food are paying purely for weight and not for meat, irrespective of how much bone is contained in the car-case. Suppose you take two animals of exactly the same weight—an Aberdeen Angus bullock and an Irish beast—and assume that they both weigh 10 cwts. each and both kill out at the same figure, 60 per cent. That means that the carcass each animal weighs is 6 cwts. after the offal, etc., has been removed. The carcass of the good quality animal may have 5 cwts. of edible meat on it out of the 6 cwts., whereas a rough animal with big bones may have only 3 or 4 cwts. of edible food on it. Yet the Ministry of Food are paying exactly the same price to the farmer for both carcasses. In normal times the butcher would pay a much bigger price for the good carcass, but now the butcher who gets the good carcass is getting pounds of steak off the rump for nothing. That state of affairs is not good for anybody. I have taken this example for the sake of simplicity in which the killing-out figure is the same. Of course, the rough animal would probably not reach so high a figure. But

even supposing that the killing-out percentage is good in the case of the Irish beast you have the position that the Ministry of Food are paying exactly the same price to the farmer who has produced a carcass with plenty of meat as to the farmer who has produced a carcass with plenty of bone.
When I came back from the Army, in 1941, I found that both my Aberdeen Angus bulls had been sold and that Shorthorn bulls had been procured instead. When I inquired why, it was pointed out to me that it would pay me much better to produce a heavier type of beast, even though there was less meat on it, because the Ministry of Food were paying simply on weight and not on quality. This state of affairs is not good for anybody; it is bad for the Ministry itself, it is bad for the farmer, and it is bad for the country as a whole, because the country is not getting as much meat as it would get if good quality meat was encouraged. There are several ways in which the matter might be remedied. The Ministry of Food have been pressed to pay a high quality subsidy, but their reply is that they have not good judges at their disposal able to distinguish between a good quality beast and a beast of less quality. Another suggestion which has been made is to make a bigger differentiation between home-bred and imported cattle. That is a possible method, but it has its disadvantages. It seems to me that the simplest way of doing it would be to have a super-grade quantity percentage, higher than the present percentage. I think the figure of 58 per cent. is much too low.

Mr. Snadden: Would not my hon. Friend agree that to raise the quantity percentage would give an excuse to the producer to carry his animals too long in order to get a higher percentage, thus using more feeding-stuffs? That is why I did not favour raising the quantity percentage, because people would hang on unduly, which would be uneconomic to the nation.

Mr. Wedderburn: That is exactly the point I was coming to. The Ministry of Food's reply has always been that it would encourage farmers, if there was a higher grade, to keep cattle too long, thus giving them food which might be used for human food. I do not agree with this. The Aberdeen Angus bullock for the first 2½ years of his life lives on straw and turnips


during the winter. It is only when he comes to be fattened in the last few months of his life that he is given a diet of bruised oats and——

Sir Edmund Findlay (Banff): Who ever kept an Aberdeen Angus bullock for nearly three years?

Mr. Wedderburn: A great many people. Most people keep them a year longer than they used to do. It is much more common now to keep them through the third summer and fatten them in the third winter, since they cannot now get oilcake or imported food-stuffs to fatten them early. I do not think there is any danger of an excessive quantity of oats which might otherwise be used for human food being given. I am sorry that a representative of the Ministry of Food is not present to hear what is being said. I would have liked to have pressed the matter more strongly, but there are other subjects for discussion. I beg my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to pay serious attention to this matter, to see that something will be done in the future not to give higher prices to the beef industry as a whole—I do not think that is required—but to make a more effectual differentiation in favour of home-bred animals of good quality, which is what we require to produce more meat for the present, and for the future of our agriculture after the war.

Sir E. Findlay: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend who raised this problem. It is a very important one for the North East of Scotland, and not only for Scotland but for the world in general. There was a headline in one of the papers this morning from the States which mentioned a short-term food policy. You can bring your beasts to maturity a year earlier if they are rough, heavy-boned beasts and, unless some help is given, the high quality beasts will die out. As my hon. Friend who spoke last said, no one is interested in killing out quantities under 58 per cent. If you encourage high quality sires and dams, you can get 9 cwts. of meat at 75 per cent. in one year and 14 cwts. in two years, and I think strains that can do that ought to be continued. I have had considerable experience of polled Angus, but other beef-breeding strains are as good, and surely what we have done among us

during the last 30 years to concentrate on first-class breeding stock should not be allowed to go by the board. It may not be possible for the Minister of Food to make the arrangement. If it is not, I put it up to the Minister of Agriculture to look kindly towards the first-class breeding bulls that we have and see that, when food-starved Europe has to be restocked with cattle, it should be re-stocked with absolutely first-class strains. I believe it is possible to do a great deal to-day scientifically, in the way of insemination and so forth, but unless we can get a certain amount of quality breeding stock we shall not be able to play our part in the rehabilitation of Europe after the war. We have had to provide sires for the Argentine for generations, and they have been a profitable investment for Scottish farmers. We shall definitely have to provide sires for Europe, and a rebate of Income Tax for farmers producing first-class quality sires would be a method of assistance to the post-war regeneration of Europe.

Sir R. W. Smith: I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend opposite on having raised this point, because it is a matter of vital importance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) referred to the fact that there was no representative of the Ministry of Food on the Front Bench. I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is no one from the Scottish Office.

Mr. Boothby: I ought to say that I had an apology from the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to go off on a mission and greatly regrets that he cannot be here.

Sir R. W. Smith: I quite understand that, but there are other representatives of the Scottish Office who could report. The Scottish Whips were present for a short time. I hope they will represent to the Minister that this point has been raised, because it is of vital importance, and we may truly say that it is a Scottish question. I should like to underline one or two little points that have been raised. The reduction of pedigree herds may be exaggerated. I do not think there is any very serious diminution in size. There has been a good deal of talk about the Aberdeen Angus, but I am glad that my


hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) referred to shorthorns, because they are of vital importance in Scotland, and I hope that will not be forgotten. We hope to be able to help to restock Europe. The Argentine depends on this country entirely for its bulls. We import a large amount of food, for which we have to pay by exports, and the export of these shorthorns is one means of helping to pay for it. We are told that the war may come to an end soon, and we must look ahead and see what is to happen afterwards. That is why it is so important to deal with this matter to-day.
Another point to which I should like to draw attention is the production of milk. I think it was a great mistake to concentrate on milk production in our part of the world, because we are not really a dairying country. It seems to me that we are going to reduce an asset which we have by working up dairies, which will probably be dropped at once when the war is over. We have a good thing in these valuable herds. Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asked a Question with regard to livestock, and the reply was that an improvement in the general standard of livestock was one of the tasks that had been set for war agricultural executive committees. I should like to ask what, in the two months which have passed since that Question was put, the Minister has found and if he has had information on the point from the war agricultural committees, because that is a matter of vital importance to us in Scotland. I am sure the Minister will realise that something must be done to protect the herds.

Mr. McKie: This is a matter which will affect the whole agricultural policy for many years to come, and I am sure we should thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before the House on the historic Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," which is a great opportunity for Members to ventilate their grievances if they are so skilful and successful as to get them redressed. I am not hopeful that we shall achieve the major objective, but I hope we shall have a little light thrown upon the intentions of the Government, and of the Scottish Office in particular. I regret that there is no representative of the Scottish Office here, but we have been given the reason. I

have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made, especially that of my hon. Friend who raised the subject, but I think he rather overdid it when he took this matter, vital though it is, rather out of its direct context, because it seemed to me that he was somewhat pouring scorn upon the policy that we have pursued since the war began. He drew attention to the fact that at the beginning of the war our food stocks were very low, and proceeded to ask what was going to happen after four years of war policy—the four-year plan—was over?

Mr. Boothby: The first four-year plan.

Mr. McKie: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend qualify it, because we all know that we shall have to have a ploughing-up policy at all events for some years after the conclusion of hostilities. Of course, the war has upset and overturned our whole agricultural policy. The land of the country had gone down to grass far too much, but my hon. Friend seems to think it was the best policy the country could pursue in the pre-war period, that the land should have gone down to grass.

Mr. Boothby: I said it was due to the short-sightedness of Governments before the war that it went down to grass.

Mr. McKie: I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend agrees with me that that was a wrong policy. Having entered these mild criticisms of what he said, I want to go a good deal of the way along the same road with him in suggesting that it is now high time for the Government to declare their intentions with regard to this question, which is being so keenly debated and is causing so much concern to the producers of livestock. The war has completely upset for the better the agricultural policy which we had been pursuing for far too long. I am certain that the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture on the Front Bench and those associated with him in administering the agricultural affairs of Scotland would not seek in any way to prejudice those who, through no fault of their own, have been unable quickly to attune themselves to the new policy. In the last two or three months I have heard a good many suggestions as to powers that are being taken in certain counties of North-East Scotland


to force beef raisers to change their premises and make them suitable for dairy production. I represent a constituency bigger than that of my hon. Friend which for years before the last war was given over very largely to livestock production. I have heard only one complaint from my constituency of unduly harsh conditions being forced upon them to turn their premises from livestock to dairy production.
My hon. Friend who raised this important question must agree that the supply of milk must for many years be the first consideration in our agricultural policy. In years gone by we have concentrated too much in satisfying the wants of the body by producing beef while being too sparing in providing what, after all, is best for man, woman and child from the cradle to the grave, namely, the liquid which comes from the cattle. The question of prices is vital. Producers of beef in my constituency have been very worried and have told me that if things go on as they are, good beef will not be available. While appreciating the difficulties of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office, I dissociate myself from the somewhat exaggerated terms that have been used in this Debate. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to indicate the Department's intention for the immediate future on this vital question.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I ought to express my regret for the absence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Allan Chapman), who would have been present but for an engagement in Scotland. It was only because the arrangement could not be cancelled at the last moment that he had to desert this Debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend is the person who is most disturbed because of his inability to be present. Before dealing with the various points raised by hon. Members, I should like to make one or two general observations and I hope to be able to give a direct reply to two questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). In pre-war days quality of home-bred fat cattle was recognised by a special subsidy, and I know that it was

appreciated by all breed societies especially in Scotland. It was also appreciated by breeders and feeders throughout the country. With the outbreak of war, conditions changed. The Ministry of Food became the sole buyer of beef. A range of prices was fixed, varying with the killing-out percentage, and four major groups were provided—A, B, C and a special group which particularly affects the Aberdeen Angus and high quality breeds in Scotland. Whenever costs have increased during the war prices have also increased, and it is felt even to-day that throughout prices have remained at a remunerative level both for breeder and for rearer.
There were, however, special war problems which did not come as a result of anything for which the Minister of Agriculture nor the Secretary of State for Scotland can be blamed. We found ourselves, for instance, short of concentrated feeding stuffs and at the same time there was the urgent demand for an increased supply of milk. The Government were confronted with a problem and decisions had to be taken. One of the first decisions taken was that dairy cattle must have first priority for the diminishing quantities of concentrated feeding stuffs. That involved that Government policy should in future lay emphasis upon the quantity rather than the quality of beef. Therefore, with a slightly reduced financial inducement for high quality beef and a shortage of concentrated feeding stuffs there was some slight deterioration in the quality of beef as distinct from the deterioration in breeds, and I think that was obviously unavoidable, because quality not only depends upon breed but it must, of necessity, also to some extent depend upon feeding.

Sir E. Findlay: No.

Mr. Williams: Hon. Members may disagree, but I think it is demonstrable that quality depends upon breeding and feeding. Since feeding-stuffs were not available in such quantities as in pre-war times there was a slight deterioration in beef quality, but that is different from a deterioration in breeds. That, I think, answers the first question put by my hon. Friend: the range of prices, including the price for the special quality, has not tended to have any serious effect upon the breeds of beef cattle. The actual


deterioration has, I think, been grossly exaggerated. What are the facts as we know them? The proportion of good quality animals passing this spring through the collecting centres has been remarkably high. If we look at the statistics for 1940, 1941, and 1942, this is what we find. The percentage in A and special class in Scotland in 1940 was 92, in 1941, 82, and in 1942, 87, while in England and Wales the variations were: 1940 72 per cent., 1941 58 per cent. and 1942 72 per cent. Therefore, there was a temporary decline in 1941 and an improvement in 1942, which has been continued in 1943.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen and other hon. Members who have spoken to-day will see that even in Scotland with its exceedingly high-grade quality of prewar days, the number of quality animals has only diminished to the extent of 5 per cent., despite the shortage of feeding stuffs and other factors which have intervened to create the situation which we have been considering. England and Wales seem to have little or no cause for complaint, for the percentage comparable to A or special grade in England and Wales in 1939 was somewhere round about 68 per cent., and the percentage at this moment is no less than 73. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and other hon. Members will be pleased to learn that. It is certainly true, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) stated, that there has been a falling off in registrations in breed societies' books, and also true that there has been a reduction in the number of breeding bulls licensed during the past two years. I hope my hon. Friend will not regard that as being wholly due to the price structure for beef cattle. There are a number of factors which have contributed to this result—the ploughing up campaign, the shortage of feeding stuffs and the milk campaign.
On the other hand, the price for Aberdeen Angus cattle shows a rising tendency. There is already a market for as many bulls of high quality as are available, and therefore it seems very unlikely indeed that breeders will change a policy which they have pursued for a number of years, and which has not only served this nation well but has served

them well in the Argentine market and other markets throughout the world. I cannot believe that because of a set of purely temporary circumstances breeders in Scotland will change their policy. I say with regret, however, that it is unfortunate that some farmers take a. much too gloomy view of the future. As these are purely war-time conditions that is not, perhaps, to their credit. Fortunately, the larger breeders, even in Scotland, are taking the long view and instead of diminishing their herds are actually increasing them.

Mr. Boothby: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive them if they bear in mind their experiences after the last war. We hope, and I think the right hon. Gentleman hopes, they will not be repeated, but they had a pretty rough time after the last war.

Mr. Williams: I am the first to agree with my hon. Friend and I do not express this regret with any feelings of ill-will, but rather out of sympathy with those who, perhaps, take a gloomy view at the moment. But I repeat that the larger breeders are taking the long view and increasing their herds, and it seems to me that there is no possibility at all of the fine breeds in Scotland or even in England and Wiles being submerged during the few years that the war may continue.

Mr. Snadden: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed the whole point of the Debate. The point we are trying to make is that the prices received by the breeders of quality animals from the Government are not comparable with the amount of meat they receive. I am astonished to hear that our cattle in Scotland are on the upgrade because I have not seen it, and I travel about a lot. The point we wish to make is that animals of high quality put into the hands of the Government meat for which the breeder receives no payment.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend can take it from me that I did not miss his point, although I was not specially replying to his direct question. I will be very happy to do so. The special grade was designedly stopped at 58 per cent. when emphasis had to be laid upon quantity rather than quality. We see no point, therefore, in farmers, who with their wide experience know that the cattle have now a killing-out percentage of 57 or 58. con-


tinuing to waste more feeding stuffs on them to carry them on to 60 or 62. After all, it is the view of the Government—[Interruption]—say the Ministry of Food if you like but it is the view of the Government—that we ought not to waste feeding-stuffs on creating a quality of beef such as we enjoyed in the days of peace. If we were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth and give 1s. 6d. per cwt. extra for those in A and special grades, is it not true to say that a lot of rough cattle would be striving to qualify to get to the 56, 57 or 58 figure? Unpleasant though it may be, it seems to me that would frustrate the object of the Government and would lead us into a position where we could not justify that step. I am willing to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen and with other hon. Members who have spoken that Government policy may have slightly affected the pockets of the high-grade producer. It may have discouraged him from maintaining high quality, but I am not prepared to agree that the future prospects of high-grade breeders are menaced. The fact that the special grade is this year to be continued to the end of August instead of for four months, is a clear indication not only that the Ministry of Food are facing the problem, but that the Government have not lost sight of the value of high-quality cattle both during the war and in time of peace.
The Government are as anxious as any one of my hon. Friends to improve the livestock of this country. Our deliberate cropping policy is bound' to give us millions of acres of young leys from one to six years, much more productive than the old grass, and able to carry far more and better livestock, once they are used for that purpose. My right hon. Friend, speaking to the Council of Agriculture said:
It is my ambition, as I am sure it must also be yours, to see a very material improvement in the quality of these cattle and sheep. The better breeding of cattle for milk and beef must therefore be one of our major concerns.
My right hon. Friend rarely uses empty words, and those I have quoted are full of meaning. It is true that it has also been, stated by some hon. Members that war agricultural committees have been invited to give, increased attention to the improvement of livestock in their various

areas, to help to eliminate indiscriminate cross breeding, and to establish a definite breeding policy in every herd. The foundation of this policy is well proved, emerging from the Licensing Act passed some nine years ago. It has eliminated scrub bulls. The standard for licensing is constantly rising and it is now necessary to ensure that the bulls are used properly. Good bulls sent into a wrong herd can produce very unsatisfactory calves. War agricultural committees are invited to see that this does not happen in the future.
Hon. Members have referred particularly to beef cattle and have asked us to indicate the mind of the Minister or the view of the Government with regard to livestock generally. All our improvements must cover dairy as well as beef herds. I am sure hon. Members will agree with the national milk recording scheme which is helping us to eliminate wastrels and with the panel scheme for the control of diseases. War agriculture committees have ample power to insist upon a sound breeding policy in every county. In a word, I would say, in reply to the general requests that have been made for an indication of our present and future policy, that our goal—and I again use the Minister's words—is a really efficient and healthy livestock industry. I would advise my hon. Friends and the farmers whom they represent to try, in these peculiar circumstances, which are obviously temporary, to get rid, if they can, of their gloom and despondency and, within the limits imposed by war, to prepare for a brighter and better peace.

ARMY LECTURES, IPSWICH (CANCELLATION)

Mr. Stokes: At the end of a long Debate on various subjects it is not improper that I should once more raise a question which deals with the rights and protection of the individual citizen. The primary object of this House is the protection of the' liberties of the individual citizen from the arbitrary persecuting powers of an unfair Executive. I wish to raise a matter concerning a series of lectures, given at the request of the officer commanding certain groups in my constituency, by a certain Mr. John White. I first raised the matter in this House on nth May at Question time, and having received an unsatisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman and being fortunate enough to get the Adjournment for


the next day, I told the story briefly to the House. Subsequent to that, I asked my right hon. Friend another Question so as to clear Mr. White's character, and that was done to a certain degree, but I still did not get any satisfaction with regard to the whole situation, and more particularly with regard to an implication which might be read into the statement of the Secretary of State in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.
I regret the inconvenience to the Minister and I am raising this matter now not with the object simply of having a friendly contest with him, but in order to make perfectly clear what the rights of my constituents are. I must restate the story so that the House may again be in possession of the facts. Briefly and roughly the story is that some time in the early winter, about November, Mr. White was invited by the commanding officer of certain troops in Ipswich to give a series of lectures upon economic subjects such as monetary reforms, the land and the Beveridge Report. Mr. White gave his services freely and the lectures were well attended. I believe they were obligatory upon the troops——

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member has raised this matter in the House of Commons twice before. Is it in accordance with the procedure of this House that a personal matter affecting the liberty of an individual citizen can be raised time and time again?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am not aware of anything in the practice of the House which would prevent the hon. Member from raising the matter on this occasion.

Sir P. Hannon: Has not the hon. Member already had the Adjournment of the House on this subject and can he raise it again?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member is doing anything contrary to the practice of the House.

Mr. Stokes: I am only trying to restate the case. I could refer hon. Members to Hansard, but everybody would have to rush out to get a copy and read it whilst I was talking. Perhaps there may be a little repetition but I do not see how I can help it. I understand from Mr. Speaker

that I should be perfectly in Order in raising this subject. I assure the hon. Member that I acquainted Mr. Speaker with what I proposed to do and he said I was in Order in raising it, if I could get the Secretary of State for War to come and answer me.
I was saying that the lectures were compulsorily attended. Although the men were free to go after the lectures, they always stayed and had long discussions. After these things had been going on for three or four months and a total of 11 lectures had been given, notice was suddenly given that they were to be terminated. No explanation was given, and it seemed extraordinary. I asked the Secretary of State for War why they had been stopped, because of my own belief, or suspicion, that there was something of a semi-political nature in it. I was determined to see that the troops were given an opportunity to hear such lectures, and as I received no satisfactory answer I raised the matter again. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the things that have happened. I suggested that Mr. White should be considered for inclusion in the list of official speakers. I was aware that if it was against the rules that anybody not on the official list should give these lectures, the commanding officer had made a mistake and was right in stopping the lectures. I thought that Mr. White was entitled at least to be considered for inclusion on the official list, but I received the most uncompromising "No," from the Secretary of State for War. I must refer briefly to what the Secretary of State for War said on the subject.
I told him the story on the last occasion, and told him of the difficult position in which it put my constituent; that it made him appear to be a man of no character, a man not to be trusted and all the rest of it. The right hon. Gentleman confounded me completely and bewildered me completely by refusing to say why the lectures had been stopped. He said:
I hope the House will take it from me that I do not think it will be fair to anybody concerned to give these reasons in detail"—
the reasons for stopping the lectures—
and I do not propose to do so. I am asking the House to accept my assurance that I have seen the reasons and that I regard them as good and sufficient reasons.


I pressed the right hon. Gentleman in the course of that discussion, as did other hon. Members, to state his reasons. He still refused to do so, but went further when, at the very end, I, having protested that it really meant that a man who had served his country well now went out to the country as an undesirable person, not fit to lecture or talk to the troops. The right hon. Gentleman made the position still worse by saying:
The hon. Member is free to think what he likes. I am sure that he will be well advised not to pursue this matter.
What can that statement leave in the mind of the public but an impression that there is something mysterious and suspicious and possibly underhand—which is most unfair as I am confident from my knowledge of the individual that such is not the case? The right hon. Gentleman went on to have a jab at me. I do not mind that. I have had jabs at him. That has nothing to do with the case. But I was trying to protect the rights of my constituent. Despite what was said by other people, to the effect that the Secretary of State should give his reasons, he still declined to do so and ended by saying:
There are certain circumstances in which I Have to take the responsibility of giving an opinion without disclosing my reasons, and this is one of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1943; cols. 754 and 755, Vol. 389.]
That suggested there was something which must not on any account be disclosed to Members of Parliament, and tended to confirm the minds of people outside that there was something very odd about this case.
I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman the effect that this has had—this very small but very unsavoury incident. Mr. White is chairman of the Anglo-Polish Committee. There have been some Poles in the neighbourhood for some time—a small number. His wife, a very estimable lady, is secretary. She offered her services, in a voluntary capacity, when the American Red Cross established a post, to assist in entertaining the troops. I agree that there was a bit of crass incompetence and prejudice, but the lady in charge of that particular unit said: "Oh no, I do not think we can have you after that nasty business about your husband." It is very unfair that should

happen. It is, surely, the obvious duty of a Member of Parliament to protect a private citizen from such possible abuses by the Executive.
On 18th May, in answer to a Question of mine, the right hon. Gentleman assured me that there was nothing against Mr. White's moral character. I was not in the least surprised to hear that. I again asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would clear up the situation by making a statement to the House of the reasons why the lectures were stopped. The right hon. Gentleman said: "No." If there was no moral question what is it all about? This man is a perfectly honourable man, a well-known member of my constituency. It seems to me that this is a kind of case which ought to be cleared up, otherwise the person concerned is put in a hopeless position and people are misled into thinking there are all kinds of deceits and deceptions going on, which is not the case. I think the Minister should tell the House what the reasons were for stopping the lectures. If it was a mistake on the part of the military authorities, well everybody makes mistakes, and if that was the reason I sincerely trust that no local commander will suffer in consequence of the ventilation I have given this matter in the House. Secondly, I consider that Mr. White should receive an apology, and I think the Secretary of State for War should certainly agree to consider Mr. White, if he wishes to be considered—I do not know whether he does—for inclusion on the panel of lecturers.

Sir Granville Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman say what are Mr. White's qualifications for lecturing?

Mr. Stokes: He is a well-known person in Ipswich. He happens to be a supporter of mine. Until a few weeks ago he was not a member of a party. He is a keen student of monetary reform and is now equally keen on land reform—such is the danger of proximity. When the local commander wanted to get someone from outside to talk to the troops, he asked one or two people whether they knew someone suitable and Mr. White's name was put forward. He is a high-class tailor by trade, and a very keen student of economics.

Sir P. Hannon: I will take up the time of the House only for a few minutes on this interesting subject. I think it a pity that matters of this kind should not be settled outside the House. I admire, of course, the consistency and persistency of my hon. Friend in vindicating the character of his constituent. I think it is a very excellent quality in Members of Parliament that they should be prepared to do that, but surely the matter could have been adjusted with the Secretary of State outside the House, without occupying the time of the House.

Mr. Stokes: This matter has had a great deal of publicity. I raised it in the first instance because I suspected—I think quite wrongly now—that there was an organised conspiracy to suppress discussion of this sort of subject in the Army. That was the only reason, quite frankly, why I raised it. Through my raising the matter it got a great deal of publicity locally, and it seemed to me that the right and proper way was to clear it up.

Sir P. Hannon: We have heard about these organised conspiracies before. It is very cheap to talk of organised conspiracies in the Army——

Mr. Stokes: Not within the Army. There is such a thing as a Gestapo in the country.

Sir P. Hannon: My hon. Friend's volubility is such that if he persists I shall not be able to get in even a few sentences. If, in matters of this kind, Ministers are forced, time after time, in this House to explain their reasons we shall never get to the end of things. Canning said "Never give your reasons. Your judgment may be right but your reasons will be wrong." We ought to leave Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State for War, with the immense responsibilities resting on him, to discharge their duties without Members bringing up things of this kind.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I think there has been a certain confusion of issues in this matter, for some part of which, no doubt, I am to blame. There is the first issue, the failure of the commanding officer to get authority for a lecturer not on the regional committee's panel to deliver a series of lectures to the troops. That was

against the Regulations. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) hopes that no commanding officer is to be victimised. The officer broke the Regulations. I do not say whether he is to be punished or not, but he did break the Regulations and the higher military authorities were perfectly right to order the termination of this series of lectures.
The next point—and this is quite a distinct one—was the Supplementary Question which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) put, after my answer to his original Question. He asked whether Mr. White could be placed on the regional committee's panel. To this I answered "No," and I repeated the negative in the first Adjournment Debate on this question. This is where I think I, myself, am responsible for a certain confusion of the issue. The question of placing anybody on the panel is not, at any rate in the first instance, a question for me, and possibly it is not a question for me at all. In the first instance, the issue of a certificate of employment is a matter for the regional committee for adult education in the Forces. It is a question of whether they regard an applicant's qualifications as sufficient. That means his scholastic, educational qualifications. What I said was that Mr. White did not possess such qualifications as to make him suitable for employment on the panel. The belabouring of the pre-war system of the City of London about which the hon. Member made such a point, is not, in itself, a sufficient scholastic qualification. I answered accordingly. But, as I have admitted, that was not for me to say, at any rate in that early stage. I am sorry for my part in the confusion of the issue because I took too much upon myself.
The hon. Member says that Mr. White and his family have been victimised by some supposed implication of moral obloquy. I tried to remove any implication of this sort by my answer of 18th May. The hon. Member gave an instance designed to show how serious the victimisation was. If he will forgive me for saying so, I think he exaggerated a little, because I have reports of what was said and the suggestion, according to my reports, was merely—[Interruption]—All right, I have a report too. As I say it was merely a suggestion that a little time should be left until the publicity caused by this series of incidents in this House


has died down. To take up another of the hon. Member's points, he said that he was concerned to see that the men in the Forces got the widest possible education. Education. Yes, but I rather suspect that he and I would differ as to what constitutes education. I think my hon. Friend himself has lectured to the Forces, and, quite frankly, I do not think that some parts of his lectures were at all educational. However, I will argue that with him in another place. Even if he regards the old hit motif of the iniquities of Mr. Montagu Norman and the stupidity of War Savings Weeks and the fact that we and not Hitler were responsible for the war, as education for the troops, I do not.

Mr. Stokes: All this about who was responsible for the war was a quotation from the Minister's right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Sir J. Grigg: To the best of my knowledge that was not stated very clearly.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, it was.

Sir J. Grigg: At any rate, it left no very clear impression on the minds of his audience. However, I do not want to make much point of that. That battle I can fight in another place, and more fully. But I am extremely anxious that Mr. White should not be treated with anything like injustice, and I am quite willing, if the hon. Member for Ipswich will let me have a list of Mr. White's scholastic and educational qualifications, to have the question of his enrolment on the regional committee's panel considered, entirely without prejudice.
It would be useful if I could have specimen copies of these famous lectures which he is supposed to have delivered to the troops, and which caused such intense interest among the troops. I daresay they do not exist, but if they do I shall be glad to have them. But, having said, that, I must observe the Regulations. Even where the regional committee has decided that it would be proper to issue a certificate of employment, it does not become effective until it is endorsed by the military command concerned, and I cannot guarantee what decision the command will come to in the event of the regional committee finding Mr. White scholastically qualified. I will guarantee that it will be considered

without prejudice, political or personal. But even when a man has been placed on the panel and his certificate has been endorsed by the military command concerned, nobody can guarantee that units will ask for particular persons to lecture to them. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot possibly get myself or any subordinate military authority into a position in which we are forced to make troops listen to lectures on non-military subjects which they find dull or which they otherwise do not wish to hear.

Mr. A. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the reason why heat has been imported into this business is that he used language in the House which brought this man under considerable suspicion. The quotations which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has given show that the right hon. Gentleman did not say in the first instance, "I do not think this man's academic qualifications entitle him to lecture," nor did he say, "I do not think this man's views are of a kind which ought to be encouraged among the troops." He used a form of words which made it appear that this man was an un desirable person. It was not the confusion of issues to which the right hon. Gentle man has addressed himself, it was the moral obloquy——

Sir J. Grigg: It was a confusion of issues in this way, that I was giving an opinion on one question without realising that I was appearing to give an opinion on a different one.

Mr. Bevan: I accept that. I have never objected to the right hon. Gentleman's tartness of speech or his agreeable belligerency. But he ought not to make innocent people outside the victims of his feelings towards my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, as he did. He let fall
one or two views about finance which frightened me rather, because, if it is now to be taken for granted that a lecture on finance and economics must not call attention to the policies of the Bank of England——

Sir J. Grigg: I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that I did not find that belabouring of the pre-war financial system of this country was in itself a scholastic or educational qualification justifying his being on the roll.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman ought to read up the lectures of Lord Keynes. If exactly the same point of view were taken in 1926, Lord Keynes, one of our most distinguished economists, would have been forbidden to lecture to the troops at all. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that views must be orthodox before they are taught to troops.

Sir J. Grigg: No.

Mr. Bevan: That is the implication. If only orthodox opinions are to be given to the troops, only hon. Members on that side will be able to lecture to the troops at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "And not all of them."] And not all of them. I would conclude by saying that all this business has been brought about by the right hon. Gentleman's infelicity of language and by a certain stubbornness, which I hope he will do his very best to correct. Then he will finish up on the best of terms with all of us.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Dr. Russell Thomas: The matter I am going to raise concerns the negotiations which have taken place between the Minister of Health and the medical profession. I would ask the House to believe that my position in regard to this matter is somewhat embarrassing, but I want the Minister and the House to understand that I raise this matter with no personal feeling at all towards any one, but purely and simply because I think that the Members of this House should have some idea before the White Paper is published, perhaps months ahead, of what has taken place between the Minister and the medical profession. After this House had suggested to the Minister that he should begin negotiations with regard to Assumption B of the Beveridge Report, on 26th May, the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) asked the Minister in this House:
What answer he has given to a large meeting of medical practitioners held recently to discuss future: arrangements for medical practice.
I am not going to read the whole of the Minister's answer but only the main point, as hon. Members can read for themselves exactly what was said. He said:

As a basis for discussion I have from time to time put ideas of my own before this committee and have invited them similarly to let me have their ideas and their full and free criticism of mine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1943; cols. 1585–1586, Vol. 389.]
The impression one got was that the Minister and representatives of the medical profession had sat round a table and had suggested ideas to one another—a sort of game of tennis. But I do not think that that is the whole story and it is the memorandum put forward by the Minister that I want to bring to the notice of the House. The hon. Member for London University asked the Minister whether his attention had been drawn to a large meeting of medical practitioners held recently and the Minister in regard to that part of the Question said he was not sure to what meeting the hon. Member referred. I will quote from the words of the chairman of that meeting who is, I believe, chairman of the representative committee which meets the Minister. The meeting was held on 16th May. The chairman said:
As chairman of the representative committee which is meeting the Minister on the morrow—
that was on the 17th—
I only wish I could carry the atmosphere of this meeting with me.
Yet the Minister in reply to the hon. Member for London University on 26th May was not clear as to what that meeting was and when it was held. The fact was that on 16th May the British Medical Association was highly perturbed and held a mass meeting of medical practitioners from the Metropolitan area at which over 1,000 people attended. That was on a Sunday, the one day that a doctor expects peace but seldom gets it. It was an urgent meeting and it was crowded. It was impossible to obtain contact with the whole of the practitioners of the country but it did the best it could and mobilised the practitioners of the London area. That meeting was addressed by the Deputy Secretary of the British Medical Association who spoke to them because he thought the profession should be informed of the proposals which had been put forward by the Minister. So urgent had the matter become that Sunday was chosen. I want, as far as I can, not o intrude any opinions of my own or indeed to side-track from the narrative that I hope to put before the House. I would rather rely on what happened at that


meeting and thereby, bit by bit, put before the House the proposals put forward by the Minister.

Sir Patrick Hannon: A Sunday meeting of 1,000 doctors.

Br. Thomas: A Sunday meeting of 1,000 doctors. The Deputy Secretary said that the discussions with the Minister were supposed to be confidential and he also made it clear that the tentative conclusions they embodied would be published in a White Paper and in the light of its consideration by the public and by interested bodies the Government would proceed with legislative preparations for a comprehensive medical service scheme at or soon after the end of the war. I would point out that the "British Medical Journal," the organ of the medical profession, said that Dr. Hill was received with an acclamation seldom found at these meetings. The negotiations between the Minister and the medical profession were supposed to be confidential but they had leaked out. The "Daily Express" and "The Evening Standard." had made some reference to them some time ago and the consequence was that it was thought better to make a clean breast of the whole thing.
But, as the "British Medical Journal" in its leading article of 29th May said, they are committal in the sense that they show clearly the direction in which the Ministerial mind is moving and its conception of what should happen to the profession of medicine in this country. Put briefly and bluntly, medical men should cease freely to practise as doctors and instead, should become whole-time employees of local authorities. If this happens doctors will no longer constitute a learned profession but instead form a service of technicians controlled by central bureaucrats and by men and women entirely ignorant of medical matters. The Minister it appears had undertaken with the medical profession to begin the negotiations "from the ground upwards." I think that that was the Minister's own expression. Again, I will quote the "British Medical Journal" in regard to that. It was said that discussions would proceed not on the basis of any preconceived plan of the Minister, but from the

ground. The meaning of this rather obscure phrase is now becoming clear. The representative committee during its two months existence has met several times. Quite recently it had placed before it a memorandum from the Ministry which made plain how far from the ground the Ministerial plan had got. Dr. Hill, in discussing what he called the "dusty subject of the administrative proposals," made it clear that the Ministry rejected the conception of a corporate body, preferring Departmental control under the leadership of the Minister. Again, I will quote the exact words, which are always very much better:
A special compartment of the present Ministry should be set up to run the show with a Minister—a political figure with a high degree of insecurity of tenure—responsible to Parliament for the health of the nation.
At the centre of this organisation which the Minister has suggested in the Memorandum to be put forward to the medical profession there would be a body known as the Medical Services Council. This would be a statutory body with the right to make public its recommendations and proposals and issue a report. I am not quite clear how far the body would go, but I think it would probably concern itself chiefly with medical matters. There would also be a Central Medical Board, which would have executive authority over domestic matters and would act as an Appointments Bureau for whole-time State-salaried domiciliary services. At the periphery, and this point is most important, it is suggested that there would be a grouping of local authorities under joint boards for health purposes. These people would seem to be a combination of different local authorities, and the medical profession would largely be excluded. I think the Minister did promise that he would keep an open mind on this matter and, possibly, recommend the addition of a small number of medical personnel, but that is not clear. I am speaking strictly on the report given by Dr. Hill. The Minister proposed in the Memorandum that general practice, at least in areas of considerable population, should be based on health centres under the control of the local authority where, as Dr. Hill says, although this would be rather vague, such local authority clinical work as normally came within general practice would also be done. Health centres would be on the basis of these services, that is, a group


of doctors working under a local authority would use a building, perhaps the town hall or some other place, where they would perform their work and where they would see any member of the public who wished to seek their services.
The Minister made it clear that he would allow no competitive practice of any kind in these central clinics. The desire of the British Medical Association has been to preserve the element of private practice and competition, which the Minister would not allow. The objections to the local authority arrangement were quite well set out by Dr. Anderson, Secretary of the British Medical Association, in a letter to "The Times" yesterday. He made it clear, for instance, that the joint local authority board would by no moans coincide with a hospital area. That, however, was a minor point. The main objection was this: The medical profession would be in the hands of the personnel of the local authorities, people who are elected periodically, who are frequently under the influence of party politics and who cannot have a proper understanding of the vital personal relationship which exists between doctor and patient. I would also remind the Minister that in addition to that the other services of the local authority would not come under this scheme. For instance, school clinics would be left outside.
I will gave an example of the danger of control by an action of a local authority. The London County Council at the outbreak of war thought that as their population was decreasing on account of the blitz and as their district medical officers would not have so many patients to attend to, the best thing to do was to decrease their salaries. That might happen under such a scheme as this. One thing that Sir William Beveridge asked for in his Report was that any medical scheme should have a comprehensiveness about it. In the words of Dr. Hill at the great meeting which was held:
As for the comprehensiveness of the scheme it was not comprehensive as far as Government Departments were concerned. There was no proposal by the Government to put its own house in order and bring in all the scattered medical services in its Departments. Local authority government was embedded in the social fabric, but was this a genuine proposal to abolish smaller authorities and to concentrate health functions in bodies of sufficient strength and financial capacity to discharge them? The fact was that rural and urban district councils were still to be left with

environmental health functions; that education authorities would remain responsible for the school medical service. Again, the mental health services were to be left as a separate entity, simply because mental health legislation was in a terrible mess which would take time to clear up. From the Government's point of view there was no time for this.
So you see that in any case the scheme put forward by the Minister would lack the comprehensiveness which was an essential of the Beveridge Plan. In Dr. Anderson's letter to "The Times" tie said:
The medical profession is aware of the part local authorities have played in our collective medical services but there is now involved, something different—personal service of which local authorities have little experience. It is service which is based on the intimate personal relations between patient and doctor. That is a matter of vast importance to the layman who has not been consulted at all and who would probably place security of food and housing before any other health measures, certainly before any transformation of his doctor into a local government official.
I would like to tell the House of the conditions of service that the Minister proposes in this scheme. Those who are in general practice already—and you would always have to meet that difficulty—could enter service as whole-time medical officers, or, if they wished, could become part-time medical officers. That is rather interesting, because the Minister, I believe, suggested, according to Dr. Hill, that part-time people who came in might then augment their incomes by getting fees from people who were too self-respecting to attend the town hall. He said that new entrants, that is, the people who would be recruited as the years go by, would either enter the service or stay out. If they stayed out and did not put themselves under other local service, if such remained in being, they would have a poor chance indeed of obtaining a livelihood. The Central Medical Board to which I have referred would prepare a roll of members. That would be the first hurdle which the applicant would have to get over. After being enrolled, he would seek appointment by a local health authority. The contract of service suggested by the Memorandum would be terminable on either side, at three months' notice.
The proposals for the consultant service were extremely vague. It was clear that the Minister had not come to the definite conclusion that he seemed to


have come to in regard to the general practitioners. They would be centred in a hospital. The appointment would be by the local authority and would be full or part-time, according to circumstances. Let us see what the Minister proposes to pay those new entrants to the service, or anyone who would undertake the practice of medicine under such conditions. He proposes to pay a salary of £400 a year. Supposing a young man finished his medical training at the age of 24, he would receive £400 a year. Probably for some time before that he would have held a house appointment in a hospital at £250 and all found. When he enters this magnificent scheme, on which so much depends on the intimate personal relationship between patient and doctor, he receives £400, and he remains on that basis for three years. After that he receives £650 a year, rising by £30 a year for a number of years. At the age of 40 or 50 he might be able to make the magnificent sum of £1,200 a year. These are days of high taxation in which the cost of living has risen considerably, and the difficulties of this young man in the post-war time would be very considerable, but perhaps there will be many young men released from the Army who will be only too glad to take a job of that kind!
The Minister mentioned compensation for practice. He said there would be compensation, but no details were given. Compensation for practice is a very serious matter. Only a few years ago a subject of high political controvery in this House was the compensation that would be paid to the owners of coal royalties. I believe feeling ran high. The matter was of first class importance and occupied a considerable amount of time. It eventually meant that the Government had to pay, I believe, something around £67,000,000. It has been estimated by certain people that the value of doctors' practices amounts to £87,000,000. The sum total of the money invested in practices is probably between £50,000,000 and £100,000,000. The whole of this was, I believe, dismissed in the Minister's Memorandum with small consideration, at any rate as far as I know. Certainly it was not given to the meeting of the British Medical Association. Dr. Hill made some comment on these proposals. He said:

Why the hurry? Why was the Government pressing forward with such energy one section of the Beveridge proposals? It might be that it was anxious to do something and found a body of 50,000 men and women comparatively easy to handle. But in his view the fact was that the Government had decided that before the major structure of the security scheme could be elaborated it was found necessary to control the medical profession so that certification could be controlled. Remarks in the Beveridge Report and in Ministerial statements suggested that interpretation. Medical certification would be responsible for the major outgoings of the proposed security fund, and as these outgoings were to be increased it was necessary to establish a stricter control over certification. Our answer is obvious. The doctor's job is to decide whether a man is fit for work no matter whether the cash value of the certificate is 5s. or 50s. a week.
Dr. Hill then suggested this cogent point:
Is the profession being exploited for political expediency?
I leave the House to ponder over that phrase, because it is well worth considering. The least politically dangerous move from the point of view of the Minister and the Government would be to act upon Assumption B. The public will admit Assumptions A and C. It is essential to keep an eye on the security fund. Again, I will quote the British Medical Journal:
We have nationalised the doctors and so given effect to Assumption B. It almost looks as if the Government wishes to claim absolute control of the general practitioner for at least one purpose—strict supervision of certification by the doctor.
Here is a further quotation from Dr. Hill:
As for the health centre it was agreed that group practice would produce a better service, but before a single health centre had been built the Government proposed to recast medical practice and place it in toto on a health centre basis. They declared that the health centre method to be inconsistent with free competitive practice. But they showed great zeal for salaried method of service before one health centre was in being. This had been described as the translation of a free profession into a branch of local government service. Whatever might be thought about methods of remuneration as a profession they could not accept such translation of status.
Dr. Hill later said:
You need not have any doubt about the line which the representative committee is taking. It is difficult to avoid at this time of great apprehension an emotional approach to this problem, and I ask you to leave tie matter to those who are speaking on your behalf. We must avoid a repetition of 1912. Let us have no disunion in the next two months. Trust the people who are doing the talking for you and hold your forces until the time comes, as it may come, for a fight.


Dr. Grigg, also, I believe, one of the representatives who meets the Minister, mentioned the state of hurry and bustle which pervaded the whole affair and said that if the Minister found his task more difficult he had only himself to blame, having committed himself already to the local authorities. The upshot of it all was that the medical profession turned down any further discussion of that Memorandum as being completely unfruitful. They demanded the setting up of a Royal Commission but after some further consultation that was set aside.
I have given a true and fair account of the negotiations up to date. They have done incalculable harm throughout the whole rank and file of the medical profession. Some time ago the British Medical Association formed a commission to examine the whole workings of the profession. This was carried out studiously and with great care by those who understood the difficulties of medical practice and recommendations of a far-reaching kind were made. Opinion on these matters and on the attitude of the profession towards the full-time State salaried service was sounded. The overwhelming majority supported freedom for doctor and patient. At the request of the Minister representatives of the profession willingly entered into negotiations without any preconceived understanding. They were to negotiate from the ground upwards. Within a short time they were met by a pigeon-holed ill-paid scheme of nationalisation. This caused bitterness and dismay throughout the profession, and they have indicated that negotiations on these lines would be unfruitful. Nevertheless, Dr. Hill and the leading article of the "British Medical Journal" have shown the workings of the Ministerial mind.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Dr. Thomas: My object has been merely to give Members of the House an idea of the discussions leading up to the present unfortunate position. I have tried to do it fairly. I can assure the House that I have no personal animosity against the Minister. What I have done would, I am

sure, have been done with greater vigour by any barrister in the House if the Attorney-General had offered to nationalise the Bar or the Inns of Court or to make solicitors the minions of local authorities. But I shall not go into any deep argument to-day. I shall not be drawn into any long dissertation on this matter except to say that if the members of a great, learned, liberal profession, whose history goes so far into the distant past, which has served mankind throughout the ages and always worked for the alleviation of human suffering, and which has ever sustained a high standard of ethics, are to be reduced to being functionaries of a local authority they stand to lose their souls, but the masses themselves, these numbers, these cyphers who will be called their patients will be reduced to a form of slavery in this regard.
I have had some impression that the right hon. Gentleman was a Liberal, indeed, that he prided himself on being in the line of the great Liberals of the past, those men who believed in private enterprise, believed that a man should be free to follow his own calling in his own way if he did not injure others in doing so; but I cannot help thinking that the principles of the right hon. Gentleman savour very much of the theory of Karl Marx. I would warn the right hon. Gentleman that in 1912 a man of great stature, a man to whom this country owes much, nearly injured himself on this rock. Let him remember this. I am perfectly satisfied. I have given to the House the points which I think the House should know. I think it is essential for it to know the state of the negotiations. The whole profession 01 medicine to-day is disheartened and dismayed by the Memorandum which was put forward by the Minister. Doctors' have lost confidence in the negotiations with him, whatever their representatives may do, and I think it has been wise and vital, even at some length, to have informed Members of this House of what has occurred.

Dr. Morgan: We have just had from the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russelll Thomas) what one would have anticipated from him, a speech which was the concentrated essence of medical stupidity. I intend to take off the gloves and to speak the truth in the very few minutes allowed me. The hon. Member has not the faintest idea of what he is


talking about. I, on the contrary, happen to be the representative of the West Indian doctors on the Council of the British Medical Association, so I am actually inside the sanctum sanctorum of the profession, and I fight them there. I do not go for them from this privileged position in a Debate on the Adjournment. If we were to have had a Debate of this kind, we should have had it when we could all speak our minds fully, have had a full day's Debate—not speak only for a few minutes and then not give way if another Member ventures to make an intervention. This is a big, national issue. It is a difficult problem at the best of times. Even with the best service available, provided after the most delicate negotiations, there will still be anomalies to smooth out, and it is essential that people should keep calm minds and should approach this question, not from the position of privileged or emotional opposition, but really as statesmen willing to do the best they can for the poor working class in this country.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Not for the working classes, but for all classes.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member may have a very limited idea of the working class. By "working class" I meant the definition adopted by the Labour Party, which covers all who are workers by brain or hand, and if the hon. Member wishes to exclude anybody, even himself, he can do so. The present medical services are completely chaotic and disjointed. We have not a unified system, and the whole thing is absolutely futile, yet medical men are concentrating on petty little differences which could be got over in any decent scheme quite easily. The private relationship between the doctor and his patient is supposed to be involved, but I would ask hon. Members to examine the State medical service in Malaya. Ask the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) about it. He has had experience in the Government service in Malaya, where there is a general practitioner service, with medical officers of health and with institutions under the Government. Ask him whether the system does not work well there. The thing is feasible, provided there is good will.
I know that the Minister of Health has a heavy task in front of him. The present negotiations are non-committal. They are

merely exploratory. You must explore a situation before you can evolve a policy. I have no hard words to say about the Minister—although I have said hard words before. Sometimes he is badly advised. I think he depends too much upon the British Medical Association, and he leans too much towards bureaucracy. After all, he is a Minister, and he has to consider the policy of his Government and take his proper place in it. It is a position in which any of us at any time might find ourselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Oh no, I have no ambitions of that kind. I am getting too old now. My time is past to have ambitions of that kind. I want to retire, not to dabble about in party politics. The Beveridge Report does not make any medical proposals, but it says that one of the pillars on which it must stand is a national, comprehensive policy of medical service, free and available to all. It must be free of cost to the individual. The patient ought not to have to consider his means in order to get better.
A lot depends upon the doctor's certification. Many doctors certify a man as fit for work when they do not know what kind of work the man has been doing. I have been medical officer to one of the biggest trade union organisations in this country, dealing with certificates given by other doctors who evidently have not had the faintest idea of their patients' work. They have certified men as fit for work, but the certificates have not been worth the paper they were written on. They said the man was fit after an accident or a disease or a convalescence, when he was quite unfit and needed a period of refitment, rehabilitation, or retraining to get him back to his job. I was at a Catholic meeting where there were four speakers against any proposals of the Minister, and after three hours I was the only one who got up and spoke for 12 minutes in their favour. That is the kind of thing you get, privileged persons who are placed by this Parliament upon a special register, given a special education and a special grant which is a claim on the taxpayers and upon what money they may have to spend on tobacco or beer. Medical education or research is not under our control. If a man wants a consultative opinion at home under national health insurance, he cannot get it. You can sometimes spend as long as six hours


telephoning to hospitals to get a patient in. I have friends who have been in panel practice, and I have been in panel practice myself deliberately. I have had the difficulty of getting patients desperately ill into hospitals which were so overcrowded that they could not get in, and I have done what one does when one has rich patients and has gone to a consultant, paid him two guineas, and got the patient into the hospital that way. If a man can afford to pay a consultant, he can very often get into one of the voluntary hospitals.
The present system is no credit to the professional organisation in this country or to Parliament's knowledge of medical conditions. It affects the health of the children and of the adults and is completely unco-ordinated. We are told that the medical service cannot be under the control of the local authorities, which takes away the basic principle of democracy. It is alleged that the personnel elected from the members of local authorities are not fit to control the relationship between doctor and patient. As if anybody appointed to a local authority wants to tell a doctor when he is to give a pill, or when he is to give a bottle of medicine, or make an examination or not. The thing is perfectly absurd. But on the question of whether a certain hospital is to be sited in a certain position, the doctors cannot be asked their views, because if the project was made public, the price of the land would go up to an extent which might jeopardise the scheme. But in the purview of the profession Whitley machinery, national, regional or local, can be arranged to get over these trivial difficulties. I could go on for days and days. I have handled this subject for 20 years, and officially for 10 years. I am a person whose advice has to be taken or rejected on this by important bodies in this country. [Interruption.] Laughter may come from some people with more knowledge and experience than I have, but I do not think it does, with due respect. The British Medical Association have been good enough in previous years to put me on six or seven of their committees.
In these negotiations I want the Minister to negotiate with other bodies, medical as well as lay. I want to ask him in particular also to have certain principles in front of his mind—no public finance

without lay control; that medical education should, if possible, be democratised and brought within the purview of some authoritative body. At present those in control take your doctors early, as most religions do, and turn them out Tory sausages. I have seen it done. [Interruption.] The present sausages are not very much, and some of these who have not reached the Brains Trust can sometimes be wiser than those who can crawl into that sacred home. There are certain principles I want the Minister to lay down. That is one of them. The second is that the foundations must be basically democratic, and the privileges of the profession must not be exploited against the public interest, but, rather, a due sense of responsibility must be given to the professional representatives, with the right of the public to have a full service of treatment of all kinds, at home, in hospitals and when convalescent, of having a period of convalescence when necessary, and a period of rehabilitation and training. That could be properly organised with great benefit to the public without doing any harm to the ethics of the profession or to the calm, professional attitude which men who have to treat the sick ought to adopt, and without their thinking of finance all the time, of "How much are we going to get?" My salary has never been more than £1,200 a year, and I have been perfectly satisfied with that. I know many practitioners who are getting very much less and are perfectly well satisfied because they are interested in their profession as a profession and not as a money-making occupation. I am sorry I have taken so long, but a subject like this could occupy a much longer time, and each speaker could take an hour with very much benefit to the community and to the profession.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am sure the House has been interested in this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) is perfectly right—what we are dealing with is a gigantic national issue. It is the whole of the implications of Assumption B of the Beveridge Report. It is with those implications that I have to deal, since the Government have accepted the principle of Assumption B. It is not only, as my hon. Friend rightly suggested, a question of dealing with the medical profession, but a question of the whole administrative structure of a comprehensive health and


hospital service. It includes the question of the relationship between the municipal hospitals on the one hand, and the voluntary hospitals on the other. I daresay there are 100 separate issues involved in Assumption B. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity of making clear what is happening in regard to the preliminary discussions of a comprehensive health service. I do not intend to enter into any of the details raised by my hon. Friend, because he has shown by his speech that his knowledge is not intimate: it is from reports, which, of course, I have read, equally with all those who follow the course of these discussions. There has been, in one way and another, and for one reason and another, a good deal of partial or second-hand information and rumour in circulation. Some direct statement from myself may not be amiss.
I will begin from February last. Although the idea of a really comprehensive health service is much older than that, it was in February last that the Government announced their acceptance in principle of Assumption B. That meant that they announced their decision to go ahead with the preparation of a comprehensive health service for the whole nation. Why I should be charged with some dereliction of duty for having used energy in this matter, I fail to understand. There is need for speed, although there is no need for haste—for speed and haste are not the same thing. There are several major issues which demand that decisions should be made as soon as possible. I, as Minister of Health, and my colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland are charged with the administration at the present moment of a very new thing, an emergency medical and hospital service. It is very certain that this country and all concerned in that service will want to know in good time what decisions ought to be taken about that service and its future when the war comes to an end. Also, there is a very large body of medical men, and especially young medical men, in the Forces now, and we have a duty to them and to their future. So the charge of speed leaves me quite cold. I can assure the House that there will be no undue haste, but there will be no lack of energy in trying to find solutions which will be characterised by what I believe is not merely the cement of all society, but the cement which alone will make a

service like this strong, namely, good will. It is not enough to get a great machine, but we shall want a great machine that works smoothly in all its ramifications: the doctors, the authorities concerned—the local authorities or new authorities representing wider areas—the hospitals, municipal or voluntary, and the organisation at the centre. Whatever the conclusions we come to, we shall want the utmost good will. Without that, you may talk about a plan, but it will not operate as it ought to operate, to the benefit of the people as a whole, for whom the comprehensive health service is designed.
From that point in February, I felt all along that there ought to be broadly three stages in the preparation of this new service. The first stage was the preliminary one, in which we are now. That should be the one in which I sounded representatives of the medical profession, the major local authorities, and the voluntary hospitals, to find out how their minds were running on the various issues, and to put before them various ideas of my own. This is essentially an early stage, and so I informed the House; and I want to thank the House for the reticence it has shown at this stage. All those concerned with long and difficult negotiations know that there is no possibility of getting a just decision unless people are allowed to sound each other's minds, without necessarily committing themselves to the first view they put forward or even the second, or it may be the third. As the House knows, in my Ministerial life I have had a good many difficult negotiations in the industrial sphere at any rate, some of them taking many months. This present stage I saw as essentially an early stage. It was a case for the free and noncommittal, and preferably confidential, exchange of ideas, and that was agreed on all hands, and we had not in any sense reached the main discussion stage that would be followed by concrete legislative proposals when the Government had come to their conclusions. I saw indeed the importance of clearing some of the issues for all of us in my own mind before I embarked on the stage of inviting general public discussion, first in this House and then outside.
The second, and main stage, I wanted—and still want—to be one of full and open review of the whole subject both in Parliament and elsewhere, among all the


organisations and professions and persons likely to be affected—and that includes, eminently, many who may at the moment be serving in the Forces as well as those engaged in their normal occupations. For this stage, which is the most important one, I thought—and still think, and I hope the House will agree with me—that the discussion may be focused and made more fruitful if I can put before it an appreciation of the main issues which will give everyone something tangible to bite on.

Dr. Haden Guest: Without commitment?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, at that stage. That would be the stage when we should all find out best the feelings of everyone, and not least of the general public who are going to be the patients of this service and for whom the service will be designed, the service which will succeed in achieving its end only if it gives them a better service than they have ever had before. We should find out their feelings without these distractions of rumour or tendentious forecast which inevitably accompany the early and preliminary discussions.
The third stage is the introduction of draft legislation, the stage when, after all the open and public discussion and expression of opinion, the Government have to make up their mind what is on the whole the right and most practicable measure to introduce to Parliament. That was the general programme in my mind last February, and it still is. It is a sound and wise programme and likely to be fruitful, given good will.
Let me now go back and tell the House what has happened since February. I duly arranged with representatives of the medical profession, the major local authorities—and I have also seen others beside the major authorities—and the voluntary hospitals to embark on the first stage with me, that is, on the preliminary and informal exchange of ideas. The medical representatives—and I will confine myself to them in this account, as it is in that aspect that my hon. Friend is interested—consisted of a group of medical men and women brought together by the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. This group, or Representative Committee, as it has come to be called, agreed with me

to discuss and exchange ideas entirely in confidence and informally and without commitment.

Dr. Morgan: Why the Royal Colleges? They have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Brown: It was not for me but for the profession to decide who was to represent them. The Committee was not in my appointment but in that of the profession. I put a number of ideas to it—including, at its own request, some ideas on a possible salaried basis for general practice in a comprehensive service—and I invited throughout the group's own criticisms and counter-suggestions. After a number of meetings and discussions the group came to me and suggested that the whole subject should be referred to a Royal Commission. We discussed this suggestion, but we agreed that our previous exchange of ideas should be resumed. There has perhaps been rather disproportionate attention directed to certain phrases, such as that about the "discard," but I am certain that the group itself had no misunderstanding of what I meant, which was simply that I was ready to consider equally any and every alternative suggestion on each of the issues under discussion and should certainly not embarrass the free range of discussion by asserting any unchangeable views of my own, whether on salaries or on anything else. If it advanced discussion, I would discard for the present any ideas so far considered and would consider each issue quite afresh, as has been my desire from the beginning, but when the proper time came I could obviously review all the various alternatives, including all my own alternatives, and see what I thought the most likely solutions were. This, I suggest to the House, is only common sense. It is a pity that so much misunderstanding seems to have attached to it outside those taking part in the actual discussions with me.
Well, we have resumed our discussions, as we agreed, and I am sure they will continue to be helpful. But I myself feel—as I think many of the others concerned feel—that the time is quite near when the most useful step will be to broaden out these preliminary talks into the next and main stage of public discussion. Fairly soon, then, I hope to be able to publish a statement, perhaps as a White Paper, in which I can survey the subject use-


fully and so afford a focus for all concerned to discuss and to say for themselves what they really think about this very vital and important new service which is contained in Assumption B of the Beveridge Report, and the best way to organise it and make it effective with good will. I am sure that we ought not to take any final decisions on so intimately personal a project as this until not only the ordinary man in the street but also the individual doctor in practice or in the Forces has had a full chance to consider the main issues fairly and on his own behalf. I hope the issue of a White Paper will be of help.
That is all I think I need say to-day, except to express the hope that people will not allow themselves to be influenced too much by unofficial, partial and almost always inaccurate accounts of what is

said to be the Government's plan. I am amused to see it suggested that it is the official intention of the Government to aim no higher than to dragoon one of the oldest of the learned professions into a corps of "State lackeys"—a description given in one particular place—or even deny the ordinary individual the elementary right to have his own say in choosing his medical adviser. For my part, until the time for a White Paper comes, I shall adhere to the understanding which I made, that the preliminary talks should be confidential, and I shall not anticipate the next stage.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question Put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 22nd June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.